55670 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 9 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146; FRL–8972–4] 

RIN 2060–AO55 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants From 

Petroleum Refineries 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action amends the 

national emission standards for 

petroleum refineries to add maximum 

achievable control technology standards 

for heat exchange systems. This action 

also amends the general provisions 

cross-reference table and corrects 

section references. 

DATES: The final amendments are 

effective on October 28, 2009. The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in the final rule 

amendments is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of October 28, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 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., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air and Radiation 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Robert Lucas, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division, Coatings and 

Chemicals Group (E143–01), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, telephone number (919) 541– 

0884; fax number (919) 541–0246; 

e-mail address: lucas.bob@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

C. Judicial Review 

II. Background Information 

III. Summary of the Final Amendments to 

NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries and 

Changes Since Proposal 

A. What requirements for heat exchange 

systems are we promulgating pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(2)? 

B. What other revisions and clarifications 

are we making? 

C. What is the compliance schedule for the 

final amendments? 

IV. Summary of Comments and Responses 

A. Heat Exchange Systems 

B. General Provisions Applicability 

V. Summary of Impacts 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and 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 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The regulated category and entities 

potentially affected by this final 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 

regulated by this final rule. To 

determine whether your facility is 

regulated by this action, you should 

carefully examine the applicability 

criteria in 40 CFR 63.640 of subpart CC 

(National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants From 

Petroleum Refineries). If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, contact 

either the air permit authority for the 

entity or your EPA regional 

representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 

of subpart A (General Provisions). 

B. 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 

Worldwide Web through the 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature, a copy of this final 

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. 

C. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this 

final rule is available only by filing a 

petition for review in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit by December 28, 2009. 

Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, 

only an objection to these final rules 

that was raised with reasonable 

specificity during the period for public 

comment can be raised during judicial 

review. Moreover, under section 

307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 

established by these final rules may not 

be challenged separately in any civil or 

criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 

enforce these requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA also 

provides a mechanism for us to convene 

a proceeding for reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f 

the person raising an objection can 

demonstrate to the EPA that it was 

impracticable to raise such objection 

within [the period for public comment] 

or if the grounds for such objection 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 55671 

1We were also required by a Consent Decree to 

consider and address the application of the 

NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A to the existing Refinery MACT 1 rule 

(subpart CC). 

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 Texas Commission 

on Environmental Quality, January 31, 2003 

(incorporated by reference—see § 63.14). 

arose after the period for public 

comment (but within the time specified 

for judicial review) and if such objection 

is of central relevance to the outcome of 

the rule.’’ Any person seeking to make 

such a demonstration to us should 

submit a Petition for Reconsideration to 

the Office of the Administrator, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, with a copy to the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the 

Associate General Counsel for the Air 

and Radiation Law Office, Office of 

General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. 

II. Background Information 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

regulatory process to address emissions 

of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from 

stationary sources. After 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 national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(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 technologybased standards must reflect the 

maximum reductions of HAP achievable 

(after considering cost, energy 

requirements, and non-air quality health 

and environmental impacts) and are 

commonly referred to as maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards. 

For MACT standards, the statute 

specifies certain minimum stringency 

requirements, which are referred to as 

floor requirements. See CAA section 

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

the MACT floor cannot be less stringent 

than the emission control that is 

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT 

standards for existing sources can be 

less stringent than standards for new 

sources, but they cannot be less 

stringent than the average emission 

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing 

sources in the category or subcategory 

(or the best-performing five sources for 

categories or subcategories with fewer 

than 30 sources). In developing MACT, 

we must also consider control options 

that are more stringent than the floor. 

We may establish standards more 

stringent than the floor based on the 

consideration of the cost of achieving 

the emissions reductions, any non-air 

quality health and environmental 

impacts, and energy requirements. 

We published the final MACT 

standards for petroleum refineries (40 

CFR part 63, subpart CC) on August 18, 

1995 (60 FR 43620). These standards are 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘Refinery 

MACT 1’’ standards because certain 

process vents were excluded from this 

source category and subsequently 

regulated under a second MACT 

standard specific to these petroleum 

refinery process vents (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart UUU, referred to as ‘‘Refinery 

MACT 2’’). 

In developing this rule, we first issued 

an advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPR) on March 29, 2007. 

The purpose of the ANPR, which 

covered the sources subject to the 

Refinery MACT 1 rule and other source 

categories, was to solicit additional 

emissions data and any corrections to 

the data we already had. We issued an 

initial proposed rule for the petroleum 

refineries subject to the Refinery MACT 

1 on September 4, 2007, and held a 

public hearing in Houston, Texas, on 

November 27, 2007. In response to 

public comments on the initial 

proposal, we collected additional 

information and revised our analysis of 

the MACT floor. Based on the results of 

these additional analyses, we issued a 

supplemental proposal on November 10, 

2008, that established a new MACT 

floor for heat exchange systems. A 

public hearing for the supplemental 

proposal was held in Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina, on November 25, 

2008. We are now taking final action to 

establish standards for heat exchange 

systems in the Refinery MACT 1 

standards (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) 

and to update and amend Table 6 to 40 

CFR part 63, subpart CC.1

III. Summary of Final Amendments to 

NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries and 

Changes Since Proposal 

A. What requirements for heat exchange 

systems are we promulgating pursuant 

to CAA section 112(d)(2)? 

On September 4, 2007, we proposed, 

under CAA section 112(d)(2), two 

options for work practice standards for 

cooling towers: Option 1 was proposed 

based on our initial assessment of the 

MACT floor and Option 2 was a beyondthe-floor option. These options would 

require the owner or operator of a new 

or existing source to monitor for leaks 

in the cooling tower return lines from 

heat exchangers in organic HAP service 

(i.e., lines that contain or contact fluids 

with 5 percent by weight or greater of 

total organic HAP listed in Table 1 of 

the rule) and, where leaks are detected, 

to repair such leaks within a specified 

period of time. 

On November 10, 2008, we issued a 

supplemental proposal that significantly 

modified the proposed monitoring 

methods, leak definitions, and 

corrective action timeframe based on a 

revised MACT floor and beyond-thefloor analysis. In the supplemental 

proposal, we also redefined the 

requirements in terms of heat exchange 

systems to include the heat exchangers, 

for which corrective actions are 

targeted, as part of the source and to 

specifically address once-through 

cooling systems. 

After considering public comments, 

for purposes of establishing MACT 

under CAA section 112(d)(2), we have 

selected the MACT floor requirements 

specified in the supplemental proposal 

for heat exchange systems in organic 

HAP service at petroleum refineries. We 

rejected the beyond-the-floor option 

because it is not cost-effective. 

Under these selected requirements, 

owners and operators of heat exchange 

systems that are in organic HAP service 

at new and existing sources are required 

to conduct monthly sampling and 

analyses using the Texas Commission 

on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ) 

Modified El Paso Method, Revision 

Number One, dated January 2003.2 For 

existing sources, a leak is defined as 6.2 

parts per million by volume (ppmv) 

total strippable volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) in the stripping gas 

collected via the Modified El Paso 

Method. For new sources, a leak is 

defined as 3.1 ppmv total strippable 

VOC collected via the Modified El Paso 

Method. The amendments require the 

repair of leaks in heat exchangers in 

organic HAP 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 is 

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 the total 

strippable VOC concentration is less 

than 62 ppmv. Delay in repair of the 

leak is also allowed for up to 120 days 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
55672 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

if the total strippable VOC concentration 

is less than 62 ppmv and if critical parts 

or personnel are not available. The 

owner or operator is required to 

continue monthly monitoring and to 

repair the heat exchanger within 30 

days if sampling results show that the 

leak exceeds 62 ppmv total strippable 

VOC. 

Sampling for leaks can be done for 

individual or combined heat 

exchangers. For heat exchange systems 

including a cooling tower, sampling can 

be conducted at the combined cooling 

tower inlet water location. Similarly, for 

once-through heat exchange systems, 

the sampling can be conducted after the 

heat exchanger water is combined and 

prior to discharge where it will be open 

to atmosphere. For both cooling tower 

and once-through heat exchange 

systems, sampling can be conducted at 

individual heat exchangers in the return 

or ‘‘exit’’ lines (i.e., water lines returning 

the water from the heat exchangers to 

the cooling tower or to the discharge 

point). That is, if the cooling tower or 

once-through system services multiple 

heat exchangers, the owner or operator 

may elect to monitor only the heat 

exchangers ‘‘in organic HAP service’’ or 

monitor at branch points that combine 

several heat exchanger exit lines, or 

monitor at the combined stream for the 

entire system. If a leak is detected (the 

measured VOC concentration exceeds 

the applicable leak definition) at the 

combined cooling tower inlet or oncethrough system, the owner or operator 

may either fix the leak (reduce the VOC 

concentration to less than the applicable 

leak definition) or sample heat 

exchanger exit lines for combinations of 

heat exchanger exit lines or sample each 

heat exchanger ‘‘in organic HAP 

service’’ as necessary to document that 

the leak is not originating from a heat 

exchanger ‘‘in organic HAP service.’’ If 

a leak is detected in an individual heat 

exchanger ‘‘in organic HAP service,’’ 

that leak must be repaired. 

All new or existing refineries with a 

heat exchange system ‘‘in organic HAP 

service’’ are required to maintain 

records of all heat exchangers and 

which of those heat exchangers are in 

organic HAP service, the cooling towers 

and once-through systems associated 

with heat exchangers in organic HAP 

service, monthly monitoring results, and 

information for any delays in repair of 

a leak. 

These requirements will apply to 

sources on a continuous basis, including 

periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM). As provided in the 

response to comments below, properly 

operating heat exchangers will not leak 

HAP into the cooling water, so HAP will 

not be emitted from the cooling tower or 

once-through discharges. It is only when 

they malfunction (i.e., there are leaks) 

that there may be HAP emissions. The 

MACT standard for heat exchange units 

addresses these emissions. Furthermore, 

there are no HAP emissions associated 

with start-up and shutdown. 

The requirements outlined above are 

based on the MACT floor determination. 

We evaluated the following beyond-thefloor options: having a leak definition of 

3.1 ppmv for existing sources (beyondthe-floor option for existing sources) 

and requiring continuous monitoring 

(beyond-the-floor options for both new 

and existing sources). As described in 

our supplemental proposal, we 

determined that these beyond-the-floor 

options were not cost-effective and 

concluded that MACT was the floor 

level of control. 

The final MACT requirements for heat 

exchange systems will reduce HAP 

emissions by 630 tons per year (ton/yr). 

The final requirements for heat 

exchange systems will also reduce VOC 

emissions by 4,100 ton/yr. Reducing 

VOC emissions may provide the added 

benefit of reducing ambient 

concentrations of ozone and may reduce 

fine particulate matter. The annualized 

nationwide cost impacts of these final 

standards for heat exchange systems are 

estimated to be $3.0 million. Our 

economic analysis indicates that this 

cost will have little impact on the price 

and output of petroleum products. 

B. What other revisions and 

clarifications are we making? 

As proposed, we are amending 40 

CFR 63.650(a) of subpart CC to replace 

‘‘gasoline loading racks’’ with ‘‘Group 1 

gasoline loading racks’’ to clarify the 

applicability of the requirements. 

Furthermore, as we proposed on 

November 10, 2008, we are also 

finalizing proposed amendments to the 

cross-references to subparts R and Y of 

40 CFR part 63 in the rule text and in 

Tables 4 and 5 of subpart CC because 

subparts R and Y were amended and the 

revised cross-references clarify the 

requirements of subpart CC. 

We are finalizing amendments to 

Table 6 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC 

(General Provisions Applicability to 

Subpart CC) to bring the table up-to-date 

with requirements of the General 

Provisions that have been amended 

since this table was created, to correct 

cross-references, and to incorporate 

additional sections of the General 

Provisions that are necessary to 

implement other subparts that are crossreferenced by this rule. With respect to 

the exemption from emission standards 

during periods of SSM in the General 

Provisions (see, e.g., 40 CFR 63.6(f) and 

(h)), we note that on December 19, 2008, 

in a decision addressing a challenge to 

the 2002, 2004, and 2006 amendments 

to those provisions, the Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit vacated the SSM exemption. 

Sierra Club v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 02– 

1135). 

The CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) 

MACT standard we are promulgating 

today for heat exchange systems is not 

implicated by that decision because it 

does not rely on or reference the 

provisions of the vacated rule and 

because the MACT standard applies at 

all times. We are amending Table 6 to 

clarify that the MACT standard for heat 

exchange systems applies at all times. 

We are still evaluating the recent 

court decision. At this time, we are not 

making any additional changes to Table 

6 with respect to the SSM provisions in 

40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). We have 

completed our initial assessment of the 

General Provisions and their application 

to subpart CC of part 63. The recent 

court decision requires further analysis, 

and we are currently evaluating how to 

address SSM events for Refinery MACT 

1 sources in light of the court decision. 

We are also finalizing amendments to 

Table 1 and Table 7 to delete methyl 

ethyl ketone (also known as 2-butanone) 

from the HAP listed in those tables 

because methyl ethyl ketone has been 

delisted as a HAP. We are finalizing 

amendments to clarify the applicability 

sections by changing general references 

to ‘‘the promulgation date’’ to specify 

the actual promulgation date of the 

original subpart CC of part 63. Finally, 

we are also finalizing amendments to 

clarify how owners and operators 

should comply with overlapping 

standards for equipment leaks. 

C. What is the compliance schedule for 

the final amendments? 

The final amendments to the Refinery 

MACT 1 rule will be effective on 

October 28, 2009. Under section 

112(i)(1) of the CAA, any new facility 

must comply upon startup or on the 

effective date of the rule, whichever is 

later. For purposes of determining 

compliance with these amendments, a 

new source is a source that commenced 

construction or reconstruction after 

September 4, 2007 (the initial date of 

proposal for these regulations). 

Consistent with the requirements of 

CAA section 112(1)(3), the owner or 

operator of an existing source (including 

an existing source for these amendments 

that is currently subject to 1995 Refinery 

MACT 1 standards for new sources) 

must comply with the heat exchange 

system requirements no later than 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 55673 

October 29, 2012. The basis for the 3- 

year compliance period is set forth 

below in our responses to comment. 

IV. Summary of Comments and 

Responses 

This preamble and the document 

‘‘National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from 

Petroleum Refineries: Background 

Information for Final Standards for Heat 

Exchange Systems—Summary of Public 

Comments and Responses’’ (‘‘Response 

to Comments’’) located in the docket 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0146) include only comment summaries 

and responses to issues related to heat 

exchange systems and other clarifying 

amendments. The major comments on 

those issues and our responses are 

summarized in the following sections. A 

summary of the remainder of the 

comments and responses related to 

those issues can be found in the 

Response to Comments document. 

Comments regarding other issues 

raised as a result of the proposed and 

supplemental proposed rules are not 

included in this preamble or the 

Response to Comments document; they 

will be addressed, as appropriate, in 

future rulemakings addressing the 

residual risk and technology reviews for 

Refinery MACT 1. 

A. Heat Exchange Systems 

On November 10, 2008, we issued a 

supplemental proposal with our revised 

MACT floor and beyond-the-floor 

analysis. In general, the comments 

received on the cooling tower 

requirements initially proposed on 

September 4, 2007, either have been 

addressed through the supplemental 

proposal or are not applicable to the 

final standards (e.g., clarifications to 

monitoring methods no longer 

required). Any general comments 

regarding cooling tower requirements 

received on the initial proposal that are 

still applicable are summarized in the 

Response to Comments document 

located in the docket (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146). Significant 

comments received on the supplemental 

proposal are addressed in this section. 

1. MACT Floor for Heat Exchange 

Systems 

Comment: A few commenters noted 

that the leak definition proposed for 

new heat exchange systems of 3.1 ppmv 

has not been ‘‘demonstrated in 

practice.’’ One commenter stated that 

the leak definition of 3.1 ppmv was 

developed by the State of Texas from 

the AP–42 emission factor. The 

commenter stated that only one cooling 

tower is operating under a permit with 

that limit (the other cooling towers are 

under construction), and this cooling 

tower has only recently begun 

operating, so there is no significant 

experience operating with the identified 

new source limit or applying it to the 

range of operations and ages of 

exchangers in a typical refinery. The 

commenter asserted that some heat 

exchangers and heat exchange systems 

are difficult to control, and different 

leak definitions are appropriate for 

different situations within an individual 

refinery, so a set of requirements must 

be demonstrated to be workable on 

multiple heat exchange systems of 

varying services and ages before that set 

of requirements can be considered 

‘‘demonstrated in practice.’’ Another 

commenter stated that there is no 

demonstration that there is technology 

that can be applied to new sources that 

improves the emission performance of 

these systems when considered across 

the operating life of the facilities. Both 

commenters recommended setting the 

new source and existing source 

requirements equivalent at 6.2 ppmv. 

(One of the commenters noted that 

EPA’s analysis shows that the next best 

controlled source has a limit of 5 ppmv, 

but the commenter noted that there is 

not much difference between the 

reductions achieved by a leak definition 

of 5 ppmv and a leak definition of 6.2, 

and 5 ppmv is not cost-effective. The 

commenter urged EPA to review cooling 

towers and heat exchange systems 

under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and 

112(f)(2) and consider factors such as 

cost rather than developing a standard 

under CAA section 112(d)(2).) 

One commenter noted that in the 

State of Texas, if a particular cooling 

tower cannot meet its normal leak 

definition of 80 parts per billion by 

weight (ppbw) VOC in the water, the 

State allows that source to set a leak 

definition of up to 150 ppbw VOC in the 

water. For flexibility when dealing with 

continuous small seepage or situations 

where the particular HAP or VOC 

present are not completely stripped by 

the cooling tower, the commenter 

suggested that in any 1-year period, if 

monitoring shows three leaks above 6.2 

ppmv, but below 12 ppmv, EPA should 

allow that source to set a new leak 

definition of 12 ppmv. 

Commenters stated that the leak 

definition of 6.2 ppmv VOC in the 

stripping gas is not stringent enough. 

One commenter noted that during 

cooling tower leak investigations 

conducted by the City of Houston and 

TCEQ, a potential leak measured at 2 

ppm required sampling by summa 

canister to confirm the leak, and EPA’s 

regulation should be at least that 

stringent. The commenter stated that a 

stringent leak threshold of 2 ppm will 

ensure that small leaks are found and 

repaired quickly, especially since the 

TCEQ leak threshold is 50 parts per 

billion by volume (ppbv). 

Several commenters supported using 

the Modified El Paso Method to detect 

leaks but suggested that cooling towers 

that have higher recirculation flow rates 

should have lower leak definitions than 

cooling towers with lower flows because 

the large cooling towers will have 

higher mass emissions at the same leak 

concentration. 

Commenters stated that EPA failed to 

consider the TCEQ Highly Reactive VOC 

(HRVOC) rule in establishing the MACT 

floor. The commenters believe the 

HRVOC rule is applicable to several 

refinery cooling towers, requires 

continuous monitoring, and it has a 

more stringent leak definition and leak 

repair schedule. One commenter also 

cited a California refinery that is 

required to install and operate a 

continuous hydrocarbon analyzer and 

repair leaks above an agreed threshold. 

Response: The TCEQ El Paso Method 

has been demonstrated at numerous 

refineries and other similar sources as 

an effective means of identifying leaks 

in heat exchange systems. The method 

has been used extensively for over 20 

years. As suggested by some 

commenters, the detection limit of the 

El Paso Method is generally less than 2 

ppmv, so leaks of 3.1 ppmv are 

quantifiable. Ongoing monitoring at 

refineries indicates that, when no leaks 

are present or after repairs are made, El 

Paso monitoring is able to detect leaks 

well below this leak threshold. As such, 

the monitoring method and the 

corrective action measures have been 

adequately demonstrated. 

In criticizing our new source leak 

definition of 3.1 ppmv, the commenter 

recognizes that heat exchangers 

connected to one refinery cooling tower 

are subject to a monitoring program 

with a leak definition of 3.1 ppmv. 

Section 112(d)(3) of the CAA provides 

that new source MACT cannot be less 

stringent than ‘‘the emission control that 

is achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar source.’’ The 

commenter’s concern that the facility 

has only recently begun operation and 

that there is not ‘‘significant’’ 

experience with the leak definition of 

3.1 ppmv does not change the fact that 

this level is being achieved in practice 

and thus is the appropriate new source 

MACT floor. To the extent that the 

commenter suggests that the cooling 

towers meeting this limit are different 

and thus is presumably arguing that 

they must be subcategorized, the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
55674 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

commenter failed to submit any data 

supporting such a claim. As one 

commenter suggested, we cannot set the 

new source limit at 6.2 ppmv because 

we are establishing these requirements 

under CAA section 112(d)(2), and we 

cannot consider cost in setting the 

MACT floor. The requirements for heat 

exchange systems are appropriately 

developed under CAA section 112(d)(2) 

because a MACT standard had not been 

previously developed for this emissions 

source. 

One commenter noted that the TCEQ 

allows some discretion in setting the 

total strippable VOC concentration limit 

or altering the limit based on the 

performance history of the cooling 

tower. We do recognize that the cooling 

tower leak definitions for total 

strippable VOC required in Texas 

refinery permits varied from 40 ppbw 

(or 3.1 ppmv) to 280 ppbw (22 ppmv), 

including within this range leak 

definitions at 60 ppbw, 80 ppbw, 150 

ppbw, and 180 ppbw, but the 6th 

percentile facility had a leak definition 

of 80 ppbw, or 6.2 ppmv total strippable 

organics as methane. While some 

permits issued by TCEQ contain 

language that allows an alteration 

request or a permit amendment 

application, as the commenter noted, 

the permit issued for the 6th percentile 

cooling tower did not include this type 

of permit condition. As we cannot 

establish a requirement less stringent 

than the MACT floor, we do not provide 

a 12 ppmv leak definition under any 

circumstances. 

Most of the commenters requesting 

lower leak definitions appear to 

misunderstand the stringency of the 

requirements for heat exchange systems 

included in the supplemental proposal. 

Based on the liquid and air flow rates 

specified in the TCEQ El Paso Method, 

and with the VOC measurements made 

as methane as required in the State 

permits and the supplemental proposal, 

a 3.1 ppmv VOC concentration in the 

gas stream from the El Paso stripping 

column is equivalent to 40 ppbw of 

strippable VOC (as methane) in the 

cooling water. The 6.2 ppmv leak 

threshold translates to a strippable VOC 

(as methane) in the cooling water of 80 

ppbw. 

The TCEQ HRVOC rule sets an action 

level that is 50 ppbw in the cooling 

water, not 50 ppbv in the stripping air 

as the commenter suggested. As such, 

the TCEQ HRVOC rule action level is 

actually slightly less stringent than the 

leak definition in the new source MACT 

requirements. Furthermore, the 50 ppbw 

threshold only triggers calculations of 

emissions, and not necessarily 

corrective action. Therefore, we disagree 

with commenters that suggest the 

HRVOC rule requirements are more 

stringent than the new or existing 

MACT floor requirements we 

established. 

In our supplemental proposal, we 

specifically looked at lowering the leak 

definition for existing sources from 6.2 

ppmv to 3.1 ppmv as part of our 

beyond-the-floor analysis, and 

determined that this was not costeffective. Incrementally reducing the 

leak definition to 2 ppmv would be even 

less cost-effective than the option we 

evaluated. Furthermore, it would result 

in negligible additional emissions 

reductions, and it is very near the limit 

of detection of the El Paso Method. 

Therefore, we reject the option of setting 

the leak definition at 2 ppmv for new or 

existing sources because it is not costeffective. 

The commenter requesting different 

leak definitions for different-sized 

cooling towers is essentially asking for 

less control for small cooling towers 

(i.e., an effective leak definition greater 

than 6.2 ppmv) and more control for 

larger cooling towers (i.e., an effective 

leak definition less than 6.2 ppmv, and 

in some cases less than 3.1 ppmv). In 

our review of permits, we found no 

basis for subcategorizing the cooling 

towers by different recirculation rates. 

In addition, the suggested approach is 

inconsistent with the MACT floor 

requirements we identified for heat 

exchange systems. 

We also disagree with the comments 

that claim we did not consider the 

HRVOC rule in our decision-making 

process. We found that most cooling 

towers that are subject to the HRVOC 

rule are associated with ethylene 

production units, and not refinery 

process units. As we specifically 

collected recent permit requirements for 

Texas refineries, to the extent there 

might be refinery cooling towers subject 

to the HRVOC rule, those requirements 

were considered in the development of 

the MACT floor. As explained above, we 

also disagree with the commenter’s 

characterization of the stringency of the 

HRVOC rule in comparison with the 

new and existing MACT floors. 

Our analysis indicated that repair 

provisions were more important in 

reducing heat exchange system 

emissions than using continuous 

monitoring. Contrary to the 

commenter’s supposition, there are no 

repair schedules within the HRVOC 

cooling tower requirements. The 

commenter actually referenced the 

repair provisions for fugitive process 

equipment leaks (valves and pumps), 

which are not applicable to cooling 

towers. In the HRVOC rule, the action 

level is not a leak definition; rather, the 

leak definition is used to trigger more 

frequent monitoring for emission 

estimation and not specific repair 

requirements. In the HRVOC rules, 

facilities with cooling towers must meet 

an annual and an hourly site-wide 

HRVOC emissions cap. The hourly cap 

is quite high, and would not require any 

heat exchanger leaks to be repaired; the 

annual cap would tend to drive heat 

exchanger repairs. A medium-sized 

30,000 gallon per minute cooling tower 

with a leak of 1,000 ppbw total VOC 

containing 20 percent HRVOC (as 

defined in the Texas rule) would have 

to repair within 45 days under the 

MACT floor requirements of this rule, 

but would not necessarily have to repair 

in 45 days to comply with the HRVOC 

rule, which sets a site-wide cap of 10 

ton/yr (45 days of emissions would 

release 1.6 tons of HRVOC, under this 

scenario). 

While different scenarios can be 

devised, the stringency of the Texas 

HRVOC rule is not as easy to categorize 

as the commenters suggest, and it could 

result in less emission reductions than 

the proposed new or existing source 

MACT floors. 

Contrary to the commenter’s 

assertion, we also reviewed and 

evaluated the permit requirements for 

the cited California refinery, and the 

permit was included in the docket. The 

permit, dated April 17, 2008, included 

a provision for a continuous monitor to 

be installed at a future date, to be 

determined, and the planned monitor 

was not being used at the time of our 

review. Additionally, based on the 

cooling tower’s recirculation rate and 

the permitted VOC daily emission rate, 

the apparent action level (also not yet 

determined) is likely to be much higher 

than the leak definition for existing 

source MACT floors. In the cooling 

tower memorandum, we only 

summarized the information from the 

top-ranked cooling towers; the cooling 

tower at this California refinery was not 

included in the memorandum because, 

based on actual permit conditions, this 

cooling tower is not among the topperforming 12 percent of cooling towers. 

While continuous monitoring was not 

used by the top-performing cooling 

towers, and, therefore, is not part of the 

floor requirements, we did evaluate 

requiring continuous monitoring in our 

beyond-the-floor analysis. However, the 

cost-effectiveness of this option 

exceeded half a million dollars per ton 

of HAP reduced, and, therefore, we did 

not require continuous monitoring as 

the standard. Rather, we adopted the 

floor as the MACT standard. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 55675 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the proposed recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for heat 

exchange systems are unnecessarily 

burdensome, go far beyond the 

requirements for the MACT floor, and 

should be revised. For the Notice of 

Compliance Status, the commenter 

noted that ‘‘heat exchange systems’’ are 

an artifact of the regulation, do not 

normally have specific names, and will 

change from time to time, so the 

requirement to identify the heat 

exchange systems that are subject to the 

requirements of this subpart should be 

changed to a list of cooling towers that 

serve any heat exchange system or 

systems in organic HAP service. For 

periodic reports, the commenter stated 

that: (1) The number of heat exchange 

systems in HAP service will change over 

time, so the requirement to report that 

number should be deleted; (2) the 

requirement to report the number of 

heat exchange systems in HAP service 

found to be leaking should be changed 

to a request to identify exchangers 

found to be leaking; (3) the requirement 

to report the number of leaks in 

§ 63.655(g)(9)(iii) duplicates the 

requirement in § 63.655(g)(9)(ii); (4) 

§ 63.655(g)(9)(iii) should not require the 

reporting of measurements below the 

leak definition and should only ask for 

a summary of the leaks identified during 

the reporting period; (5) each 6-month 

period will include a lot of leaks, so 

there is no need to report the date of 

every leak (a record should be 

sufficient); (6) § 63.655(g)(9)(v) should 

be revised to reflect all delays and to 

address situations when a leak is 

detected in one reporting period and 

repaired in the next; and (7) reporting 

the estimate of VOC emissions for delay 

of repair should only be required when 

the delay of repair option was invoked. 

For recordkeeping, the commenter 

stated that: (1) Calculating the requested 

information for each heat exchanger in 

a refinery will take an estimated 40 

hours per refinery and must be repeated 

every year; these burdens were not 

included in the information collection 

request (ICR) burden estimate and do 

not add value for exchangers that will 

not be monitored due to low HAP 

content, that do not contact HAP, or 

would not leak into the cooling water; 

(2) although sources will need a record 

of which heat exchange systems include 

exchangers in organic HAP service to 

comply with the monitoring 

requirements, identification of all heat 

exchangers is not necessary; and (3) the 

information requested in 

§ 63.655(i)(4)(iii)(E) is sometimes 

available for whole cooling towers but 

not readily available for heat exchange 

exit lines or cooling tower return lines. 

The commenter stated that temporary 

heat exchangers and sample coolers 

should be excluded from these 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

Response: We reviewed the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements identified by the 

commenter. We do not see how the heat 

exchange system will be as variable as 

the commenter suggested. We have 

revised the definition of heat exchange 

system to clarify our intent. We also: (1) 

Amended § 63.655(g)(9)(v) to more 

clearly indicate that all delayed repairs 

must be included and that delays may 

occur across reporting periods; (2) 

amended the reporting requirements in 

§ 63.655(g)(9)(vi) to clarify that leak 

emission estimates are only required for 

an actual delay of repair; and (3) 

clarified in § 63.655(g)(9)(vi) that the 

flow rate is for the location where the 

monitoring occurs. It 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. For the other comments, we 

find that the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are needed to 

document compliance with the rule. 

Specifically, identifying heat exchangers 

and heat exchange systems that are in 

organic HAP service, maintaining 

monitoring results, and reporting the 

date a leak is identified and repaired is 

essential for demonstrating compliance 

with the monitoring requirements. 

2. Applicability Issues 

Comment: One commenter supported 

changing the affected source from 

‘‘cooling towers’’ to ‘‘heat exchange 

systems,’’ noting that it allows the 

facilities flexibility in monthly 

monitoring, leak tracking, and 

determining best sampling locations. 

Other commenters stated that Refinery 

MACT 1 should only apply to heat 

exchange systems that are part of 

cooling tower systems and should not 

apply to once-through cooling water 

systems. The commenters suggested that 

the supporting documentation indicates 

that only cooling tower heat exchange 

systems were evaluated, and, if EPA 

wants to finalize requirements for oncethrough cooling water systems, the 

requirements must be properly 

evaluated and the analyses provided for 

comment. One commenter stated that 

the emissions from once-through 

cooling systems are fundamentally 

different than systems with cooling 

towers since once-through systems do 

not have the air contact and stripping 

properties of cooling towers, and, as a 

result, a cost analysis of the two systems 

would show considerably different 

costs. The commenter also noted that 

the monitoring and repair techniques 

employed for the once-through systems 

are different than the monitoring for 

cooling tower systems, and these 

techniques should be evaluated for best 

demonstrated control technology (BDT) 

if once-through cooling systems are 

included in the rule. One commenter 

noted that, as proposed, the heat 

exchange system requirements apply to 

systems where the pressure gradient 

would not allow leakage into the 

cooling water. The commenter noted 

that these systems do not need 

monitoring, and a pressure gradient 

threshold of 35 kilopascals (kPa) should 

be included in the definition of ‘‘heat 

exchange system’’ to exempt these types 

of systems from Refinery MACT 1. 

Finally, the commenter stated that 

including the term ‘‘cooling tower’’ in 

the definition of ‘‘heat exchange 

system’’ could lead to confusion over 

the monitoring location requirements. 

Response: EPA has developed MACT 

standards, such as the Hazardous 

Organic NESHAP (HON) and Ethylene 

MACT, for heat exchange systems, and 

these standards include once-through 

cooling water systems. Generally, the 

HON and Ethylene MACT standards 

allow alternative surrogate means of 

compliance that are equivalent to those 

standards. We considered and rejected 

these alternatives in the development of 

the requirements that we proposed for 

heat exchange systems and that we are 

now finalizing because the HON and 

Ethylene MACT standards are less 

stringent than our floor. We are not 

aware of any means of surrogate 

monitoring that would achieve 

identification of leaks equivalent to the 

floor level of monitoring required for 

refinery heat exchange systems. 

We believe that control of oncethrough heat exchanger cooling systems 

is appropriate for several reasons, as 

outlined below. First, emissions of 

volatile HAP such as benzene occur 

readily from open water sources, which 

is why the Benzene Waste Operations 

NESHAP and the Refinery MACT 1 

wastewater provisions require 

wastewater streams with benzene (as a 

surrogate for volatile HAP) to be covered 

and controlled until an appropriate 

treatment process is used to recover or 

destroy the benzene. While the stripping 

process may not be as fast as in a 

cooling tower, the once-through cooling 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
55676 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

3 Gibbons, DC. The Economic Value of Water. 

Published by Resources for the Future. 1986. 

4 Veil, J., M. Pruder, D. Littleton, and D. Moses. 

‘‘Cooling Water Use Patterns at U.S. Nonutility 

Electric Generating Facilities.’’ Environmental 

Science and Policy. 2000. 

water will have a much longer exposure 

to the atmosphere than a system with a 

cooling tower. Thus, while the 

emissions may occur over a longer time 

period (over a larger area), all available 

scientific evidence and fate modeling 

studies of open water systems leads us 

to conclude that essentially all volatile 

HAP will be released into the 

atmosphere. As such, we see no reason 

why HAP leaks from heat exchange 

systems into once-through cooling water 

should be treated any differently than 

HAP leaks from heat exchange systems 

that have cooling towers. 

Second, in conducting the MACT 

floor analysis for heat exchange systems 

presented in the supplemental proposal, 

we assumed that once-through cooling 

waters were included and that 

emissions from the once-through 

systems would be similar to those with 

recirculation of cooling waters. In 

reviewing the permits that formed the 

basis of the MACT floor analysis, we 

found that the majority did not indicate 

whether the system was once-through or 

recirculating. However, we note that 

some permits included text for 

monitoring of ‘‘cooling towers’’ and 

‘‘cooling tower water’’ and some 

specified monitoring for ‘‘heat 

exchanger system cooling water.’’ The 

latter permits would appear to include 

once-through systems. Based on review 

of multiple references, the use of oncethrough cooling water in the petroleum 

refinery industry has been declining 

over the last 40 years, and is now a very 

small subset of the heat exchanger water 

systems. One reference indicated that a 

sample of facilities surveyed back in 

1967 showed that only 5 percent of 

petroleum refineries were still using 

once-through cooling.3 No more recent 

data could be found on how many 

refineries use once-through systems. A 

more recent study on once-through 

cooling systems for cogeneration 

facilities indicated that approximately 

11 percent of non-utility plants that 

cogenerated power use once-through 

cooling; the 123 non-utility facilities 

included pulp and paper, chemical, iron 

and steel, aluminum, and petroleum 

refining industries.4 Of the 123 facilities 

in the survey, four were confirmed 

petroleum refineries and three of these 

four sources provided a response to the 

survey. None of the three reported that 

once-through cooling systems were 

used. 

Hypothetically, if we assumed that 

there were additional once-through 

cooling systems that were not included 

in our MACT floor analysis, we could 

assume that approximately 5 to 11 

percent of the total cooling systems 

were once-through. The original number 

of cooling tower systems included in the 

MACT floor analysis was 520. If we 

assume that 5 to 11 percent of the 

cooling systems are once-through 

systems, then the total hypothetical 

number of cooling systems could range 

from 547 to 584 cooling systems. The 

MACT floor for these cooling systems 

would be based on the average 

emissions limitations achieved by the 

top 12 percent of cooling systems; the 

6th percentile would be represented by 

the 33rd and the 35th cooling systems, 

respectively, for the hypothetical total 

number of cooling systems estimated to 

be 547 and 584. There would be no 

change in the MACT floor for existing 

sources for this hypothetical case. The 

MACT floor would be identical to the 

requirements in the supplemental 

proposal, i.e., the 33rd and 35th ranked 

cooling systems have requirements to 

implement corrective action and heat 

exchange leak repairs when the 

strippable total VOC concentration in 

stripped air exceeds 6.2 ppmv. The 

owner or operator must identify the 

leaking heat exchanger, and repair at the 

earliest opportunity and no later than 

the next scheduled shutdown. 

To the extent the commenters are 

suggesting that once-through systems 

should be treated as a separate 

subcategory, they have provided no 

information to support that 

subcategorization is appropriate. 

We agree with the commenter and 

have clarified in § 63.654(b)(1) that the 

requirements do not apply to heat 

exchange systems where the minimum 

water-side pressure is 35 kPa greater 

than the maximum process-side 

pressure. We have also revised the 

definition of ‘‘heat exchange system’’ to 

identify the equipment that is included 

for closed-loop recirculation systems 

(systems with cooling towers), to 

identify the equipment that is included 

in the once-through systems, and to 

clarify that once-through systems are 

also regulated. Furthermore, definitions 

are provided for ‘‘cooling tower return 

line’’ and ‘‘heat exchanger exit line’’ to 

clarify the appropriate sampling 

locations. Sampling at either location is 

allowed; for once-through cooling 

systems, sampling is allowed at an 

aggregated location as long as it is before 

exposure to the atmosphere. To clarify 

this requirement, we have modified the 

definition of ‘‘heat exchange exit line’’ 

to be ‘‘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, whichever 

occurs first.’’ 

3. Compliance Schedule for Heat 

Exchange Systems 

Comment: Several commenters 

supported the originally proposed 

compliance date of 3 years and 90 days. 

One commenter noted that the reference 

to 90 days in CAA section 112(f)(4) has 

been misread by some to limit 

compliance time, but since it is 

expected that installation of controls 

necessitates a longer time to comply, the 

waiver provisions should only be 

considered if EPA set a compliance 

deadline less than 3 years. Some 

commenters noted that 18 months 

should be sufficient for all new 

requirements, as industry is already 

familiar with many of the processes to 

be controlled and are already regulating 

these emissions. 

Several commenters addressed the 

compliance dates relative to the 

supplemental proposal. For new 

sources, commenters noted that these 

requirements will be promulgated only 

2 months after they were proposed in 

the supplemental proposal, which is 

inadequate time in which to have 

monitors purchased and operating. The 

commenters asserted that EPA should 

provide 1 year for new sources to 

comply with the standards. 

Commenters specifically noted that 

although many Texas refiners are 

currently familiar with the monitoring 

methods required for heat exchange 

systems, it took years for them to gain 

that familiarity, and it will take time for 

other refiners to learn to perform the 

methods efficiently. One commenter 

noted that when monitoring begins, 

there will be an initial period in which 

multiple repairs are necessary, some of 

which may require shutdowns. The 

commenters recommended that EPA 

provide the full 3 years provided by the 

CAA for compliance with heat exchange 

system requirements; this additional 

time would allow refiners to become 

familiar with the monitoring method 

and to complete initial repairs during 

already scheduled shutdowns and 

turnarounds. Conversely, several 

commenters stated that the cooling 

tower standards should be implemented 

in 1 year rather than progressively over 

3 years as proposed in the supplemental 

proposal. Another commenter stated 

that the 18-month compliance schedule 

for heat exchange systems in the 

supplemental proposal is preferable to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 55677 

the 3-year (and 90 days) compliance 

schedule in the original proposal. 

Response: As an initial matter, we 

note that the originally proposed 

compliance schedule (i.e., 3 years and 

90 days) should not have included the 

additional 90 days. Section 112(i)(3) of 

the CAA provides that existing sources 

must comply within ‘‘3 years after the 

effective date’’ of the standard. With 

respect to the 18-month compliance 

timeframe specified in our 

supplemental proposal, we agree that 

the commenters have made valid points 

supporting adoption of a 3-year 

compliance period instead. The 

comments that many refineries do not 

have experience with the TCEQ El Paso 

Method is supported by our review of 

cooling tower requirements for different 

States. We believe that some sources 

will need up to the full 3 years allowed 

under CAA section 112(i)(3) based on 

the estimated length of time required for 

refiners to survey the heat exchangers, 

identify those in organic HAP service, 

install the necessary sampling ports, 

purchase the Modified El Paso sampling 

system, familiarize themselves with the 

test method, and provide training to 

their employees. In addition, refiners 

will need to take steps to be prepared 

to repair leaking heat exchange systems. 

This includes performing initial 

sampling to identify heat exchangers 

that are prone to leakage or are in 

critical service, identify means to isolate 

or repair heat exchangers online, and to 

order and stock necessary equipment 

and spare parts. 

With respect to new source 

requirements, the CAA specifies that 

such sources must comply upon start-up 

or the date of publication of the final 

rule, whichever is later. We note that, 

based on the definition of an affected 

source in the Refinery MACT 1 rule, a 

construction project significant enough 

to trigger the new source provisions is 

likely to take years to complete, and that 

any source undertaking such project has 

been on notice since our initial proposal 

that cooling tower monitoring (or heat 

exchange system monitoring) would be 

required. 

4. Delay of Repair Provisions 

Comment: Commenters noted that the 

new source delay of repair standards are 

based on cooling towers that are not yet 

operational, so those permit conditions 

are not ‘‘achieved in practice.’’ The 

commenters argued that it takes time 

after startup of new facilities to 

determine if new, previously untested 

requirements are achievable or whether 

permit modifications are needed; it is 

also unknown if Texas will allow 

deviations from permit conditions and 

under what conditions for heat 

exchange system repairs. The 

commenters stated that the new source 

delay of repair standards must instead 

be based on ‘‘Repair and Delay 2’’ as 

described in Table 1 of EPA’s 

supporting memorandum (which the 

commenter thought were the 

requirements for the existing source 

floor). 

One commenter supported the 45-day 

repair allowance and delay of repair 

allowances. Another commenter stated 

that the maximum delay of repair 

should be 60 days because refineries 

already have 18 months to comply. 

Some commenters expressed concern 

that EPA proposed to disallow delay of 

repair for leaks above 62 ppmv after 3 

years and noted that EPA has not 

demonstrated the rationale for removing 

that allowance. One commenter stated 

that EPA needs to address the situation 

in which multiple small leaks occur at 

multiple heat exchangers and the 

cumulative effect at the cooling tower 

return line is a leak above 62 ppmv. The 

commenters stated that unplanned 

shutdowns are expensive and 

disruptive, but would be necessary 

when repair is infeasible without a 

shutdown. One commenter requested 

that EPA allow owners and operators to 

request delay of repair on a case-by-case 

basis when justified. 

Response: The supplemental 

proposed MACT floor for both new and 

existing sources is repair within 45 days 

for leaks of 62 ppmv or greater. In 

establishing the floor, we found that the 

no delay of repairs requirement for large 

leaks has been implemented and 

required for 35 cooling towers at 

numerous facilities. Also, both the topranked and 6th percentile cooling tower 

had identical requirements excluding 

large leaks from delay of repair. As 

such, this requirement has been 

implemented and has been adequately 

demonstrated and it establishes the 

minimum floor requirement. In the 

supplemental proposal, we proposed to 

allow delay of repair for large leaks for 

the 18 month phase-in of the repair 

requirements, which correspond to the 

‘‘Repair and Delay 2’’ provisions cited 

by the commenter. However, we have 

concluded that these temporary delay of 

repair provisions were not equivalent to 

the requirements for the MACT floor for 

existing heat exchange systems, which 

is why they were only temporary 

provisions in the supplemental 

proposal. Additionally, the 3-year 

compliance timeframe in the final rule 

will allow facilities sufficient time to 

resolve these initial problems. As 

discussed previously, we are now 

implementing all heat exchange system 

requirements for existing sources on the 

same 3-year schedule. Upon 

implementation of the required 

monitoring provisions, it is anticipated 

that leaks will be identified well before 

they become large. Thus, while delay of 

repairs are allowed for small leaks, it is 

the refinery owner or operator’s 

responsibility to order necessary parts 

and schedule a repair before the leak 

exceeds the 62 ppmv threshold. 

Negligence on the part of the owner or 

operator regarding this responsibility is 

not a reasonable justification for 

providing delay of repair provisions for 

large leaks. Consistent with the 

requirements that apply to the units 

which provided the basis for the MACT 

floor, any leak greater than 62 ppmv that 

is not repaired in the timelines provided 

in the rule is a deviation of the standard 

and subject to enforcement actions at 

the discretion of the Agency or 

permitting authority. 

5. Monitoring Alternatives 

Comment: Commenters noted that the 

concentration of heavy organic HAP and 

water soluble HAP can build up in 

recirculating cooling tower systems, and 

since the El Paso Method involves more 

vigorous stripping than occurs in a 

cooling tower, monitoring might falsely 

indicate a leak. The commenters 

suggested that, as an alternative, sources 

should be allowed to use methods they 

are presently using, including testing 

the inlet water to a heat exchange 

system and using the difference between 

the outlet and the inlet to determine if 

the leak definition is exceeded. One 

commenter noted that if once-through 

cooling systems continue to be 

considered affected facilities by EPA, it 

is important for the requirements to 

consider the baseline of HAP (or 

surrogate VOC) emissions in the inlet to 

the system so that facilities are only 

responsible for assessing any ‘‘increase’’ 

in the pollutant attributed to the 

operating facility, not pollutants in the 

water basin upstream of the facility. 

Another commenter requested that EPA 

allow owners or operators to 

demonstrate that another monitoring 

method such as a continuous emission 

monitoring system or parameter 

monitoring is equivalent to the 

monitoring methods specified for heat 

exchange systems. One commenter 

requested that EPA continue to allow 

the method originally proposed as well 

as a relatively new analytical method for 

early detection developed by Baker 

Petrolite. Another commenter stated 

that the El Paso Method measures VOC 

in the air, and EPA should allow any 

monitoring method that has adequate 

sensitivity to measure 80 ppbw of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
55678 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

strippable VOC in the water or for a 

surrogate that can be correlated to 

strippable VOC and can be measured at 

a level that would indicate a leak of 80 

ppbw of strippable VOC in the water for 

a particular heat exchange system. This 

monitoring flexibility would be helpful 

to confirm El Paso results as well as 

more efficient for sources that are 

required to conduct other types of 

monitoring by their State or local agency 

or for compliance with another Federal 

regulation (such as the HON). 

Response: We acknowledge that some 

refineries have specific monitoring 

systems in-place and that the use of 

these monitoring systems would ease 

the burden on the refinery owner or 

operator. However, we are not aware of 

any practical alternatives that we can 

specify that provide an equivalent 

measure of strippable organics. Nor 

have any of the commenters provided 

evidence that a specific alternative 

method would result in an equivalent 

measure. For example, we have 

reviewed the ‘‘method for early 

detection developed by Baker Petrolite’’ 

and found that the detection level for 

most individual compounds is much 

higher than the total strippable VOC 

concentrations that define a leak for the 

MACT floor facility. That is, this 

method would not be able to identify 

small to medium-sized leaks that would 

be identified and would be required to 

be fixed by the MACT requirements for 

heat exchange systems. 

Although we expect the El Paso 

column to mimic the stripping that 

occurs in the cooling tower, the amount 

of stripping that occurs in the cooling 

tower is dependent on the design and 

operation of the cooling tower. 

Moreover, the purpose for the use of the 

El Paso Method is to detect leaks in heat 

exchange systems, not to estimate 

emissions. Consequently, we do not 

believe that analytical methods based on 

the measurement of single constituents 

or that employ inlet/outlet cooling 

tower water sampling are equivalent to 

the El Paso Method for determining 

strippable VOC. That is, these 

alternative methods would not result in 

the same corrective action thresholds as 

the prescribed monitoring technique. 

The commenters have provided no 

evidence that a build-up of heavy 

organics would cause a heat exchange 

system to exceed a leak definition of 6.2 

ppmv total strippable VOC, nor have 

they provided compelling evidence that 

such a leak would not result in any air 

emissions. While we agree that the 

relative stripping efficiency of a given 

cooling tower will not necessarily match 

the stripping efficiency of the El Paso 

stripping column, it is unreasonable to 

conclude that the cooling tower will 

have no HAP emissions. Furthermore, 

the majority of HAP included in Table 

1 are volatile. Thus, for a heat exchange 

system that is ‘‘in HAP service,’’ we 

believe it is appropriate to initiate 

corrective action if the leak threshold is 

exceeded because that corrective action 

will result in reduced HAP emissions. 

As stated previously, the goal of the 

heat exchange system provisions is to 

identify and fix leaks at the heat 

exchanger to reduce subsequent 

emissions of HAP. For once-through 

cooling systems, we believe it is 

unlikely that the strippable organics 

concentration in the inlet water would 

exceed the leak threshold. Further, the 

commenters have provided no evidence 

that the fresh water feed for a oncethrough heat exchange system could 

contain enough strippable organics to 

cause a heat exchange system to exceed 

a leak definition of 6.2 ppmv total 

strippable VOC. Therefore, we have not 

provided any alternative leak detection 

procedure for once-through heat 

exchangers. 

Comment: Commenters supported 

allowing the facility to demonstrate that 

a leak is not in a heat exchanger that is 

in HAP service. One commenter stated 

that if VOC testing indicates a leak in a 

heat exchange system, the facility 

should be allowed to speciate the 

compounds in the leak to determine if 

the leak is a HAP leak. Another 

commenter agreed, noting that proposed 

§ 63.654(e) requires monitoring of every 

individual exchanger in organic HAP 

service in a heat exchange system in 

order to prove that the leak is not from 

an exchanger in organic HAP service. 

The commenter stated that this 

requirement is very costly and 

recommended three alternatives: (1) The 

owner or operator should be allowed to 

determine the species in the process or 

processes served by the cooling tower to 

determine if the process is in HAP 

service; (2) the owner or operator should 

be allowed to speciate the sample from 

the cooling tower return line to 

determine the leaking heat exchanger; 

and (3) the owner or operator should be 

allowed to sample groups of heat 

exchangers rather than each individual 

heat exchanger. 

One commenter noted that the 

supplemental proposal appears to only 

allow sampling at the outlet of each heat 

exchanger or at the inlet to a cooling 

tower, but it is often preferred to sample 

at branch points in cooling tower return 

piping for several reasons: (1) Only a 

particular branch has exchangers in 

HAP service; (2) it is easier to identify 

the source of any leak that does occur; 

or (3) a particular cooling tower is 

shared among administrative units and 

compliance is more readily achieved if 

each unit is responsible for its own heat 

exchangers. The commenter also noted 

that the language is inconsistent with 

the definition of ‘‘heat exchange 

system,’’ which can be any number of 

exchangers, not just one exchanger or all 

exchangers in a particular cooling water 

loop. The commenter suggested 

revisions to the definition of ‘‘cooling 

tower return line’’ to clarify the 

requirement. 

Response: The purpose for the rule is 

to find and fix leaks for heat exchange 

systems in organic HAP service. If a leak 

is detected at a cooling tower return line 

or in a once-through system, the owner/ 

operator can find and fix the leak by any 

means possible, including the means 

specified by the commenters. If, 

however, the owner/operator does not 

want to fix the leak because they believe 

that the leak is caused by heat 

exchangers that are not in organic HAP 

service, the only way to definitively 

prove that is to test the individual or 

groups of heat exchangers in organic 

HAP service that make up the system in 

which a leak has been detected. 

The Texas permit data and TCEQ El 

Paso Method is based on strippable 

VOC. We found that this is an 

appropriate surrogate for HAP emissions 

for cooling towers that are in HAP 

service. A refinery may use speciation of 

the El Paso column stripping air or other 

methods at their discretion to determine 

the location of the leak. However, we 

cannot provide, based on the MACT 

floor requirements, an alternative action 

level that defines a HAP leak as opposed 

to a VOC leak, as the commenter 

proposes. 

We have made minor adjustments to 

the final standards to allow our 

intended outcome of alternative 3, as 

described by the commenter. 

Specifically, we have clarified the 

definition of heat exchanger exit line to 

include water lines from ‘‘one or more 

heat exchangers.’’ This clarification is 

intended to allow monitoring using the 

Modified El Paso Method from each 

heat exchanger or group of heat 

exchangers in organic HAP service 

upstream of the cooling tower return 

line. For example, if three process units 

are served by one heat exchange system 

and multiple heat exchangers are 

grouped by process unit and the three 

return lines combine before the main 

cooling tower return line, then the 

owner or operator may choose to 

measure each of the three return lines 

associated with a process unit in organic 

HAP service. If monitoring at those 

points results in concentrations less 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 55679 

than the leak definition, then no repair 

is necessary. 

6. Impact Estimates for Cooling Towers 

Comment: Several commenters argued 

that EPA’s estimates of baseline 

emissions were based on faulty and 

unsupported premises. One commenter 

stated that the model cooling tower 

sizes understate the emissions because 

the average flow rate is a factor of 2 less 

than in a study performed by the 

Galveston-Houston Association for 

Smog Prevention (GHASP). One 

commenter said the emissions are 

understated because they do not include 

HAP emissions from SSM events. Two 

commenters questioned the use of TCEQ 

inventory data. One commenter stated 

that the TCEQ inventory appears to be 

biased low for HAP when compared to 

the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 

reported releases (on a plant-wide 

basis). The other commenter suggested 

that EPA mistakenly assumed the TCEQ 

data were based on controlled emission 

factors in projecting the baseline 

emissions ranging from 352 to 2,300 

ton/yr because of the guidance provided 

in the 2006 TCEQ inventory guidelines 

for cooling towers. The commenter also 

cited a report by URS Corporation 

where two high rate leaks were 

identified as evidence that the baseline 

emission rates were too low. 

Two commenters stated that the 

cooling tower impacts do not account 

for the maximum emissions allowed 

under the proposed MACT standard. 

According to the commenters, the 

cooling tower impacts assume 50 

percent of leaks are fixed as soon as 

possible rather than the 45 days allowed 

in the proposed rule, and they do not 

account for permitted delay of repair for 

up to 120 days. Also, the commenters 

stated that the EPA did not justify the 

50 percent assumption for delay of 

repair and should assume all refineries 

will delay repair. 

Two commenters also cited variability 

in the emissions from cooling towers as 

a concern. One commenter stated that 

the use of a single average HAP content 

for the cooling tower emissions 

estimates does not consider the range of 

potential HAP concentrations. Another 

commenter questioned the use of 2004 

TCEQ inventory data by comparing the 

2004 TCEQ inventory for selected 

refineries with TCEQ data for 2005 and 

2006, which showed that the quantity 

and composition of emissions is 

variable from year to year. According to 

this commenter, EPA failed to account 

for this variability or provide rationale 

as to why the 2004 emissions data are 

representative, and, therefore, the 

analysis fails to capture all refinery 

emissions and is unlawful. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters that state that the cooling 

tower emissions were understated or 

otherwise not properly characterized 

when developing the impact estimates. 

With respect to the cooling tower sizes, 

the GHASP study includes refineries 

and chemical plants, and the data are 

skewed by several large cooling towers, 

which we believe are associated with 

petrochemical (ethylene) plants and not 

refineries. Eliminating the three largest 

cooling towers of the 54 cooling towers 

in the GHASP dataset brings the data 

(which include only the Houston area, 

which has larger than average-sized 

refineries) in reasonable agreement with 

the projected size-distribution of cooling 

towers (the mean cooling tower 

recirculation rate in the GHASP data is 

reduced from a factor of 200 percent to 

a factor of 50 percent above the mean 

flow rate in our impacts analysis). The 

TCEQ emissions data and the AP–42 

emission factors are the best available 

data by which to estimate cooling tower 

emissions. The TRI does not provide 

emissions breakdown by source, so it is 

impossible to determine what emissions 

in the TRI are associated with cooling 

towers. 

We specifically consider SSM 

emissions in the cooling tower impacts. 

Heat exchanger leaks that result in 

cooling tower emissions are a type of 

malfunction. If the units operate as 

designed, there would be no emissions 

from the cooling towers. No additional 

emissions are expected specific to 

cooling towers during startup or 

shutdown events. The requirements for 

monitoring and repairing heat exchange 

systems directly address malfunction 

emissions. 

We also note that selected short-term 

emissions from selected heat exchanger 

leaks are not indicative of the average 

long-term emissions that are appropriate 

for estimating chronic effects or lifetime cancer incidence. Not all heat 

exchange systems leak every year, and 

the leaks that do occur do not last all 

year long. Note also that two of the 

‘‘leaks’’ identified in the cited study 

were comparable to the controlled AP– 

42 emission factor. Our impact 

estimates directly account for the fact 

that some heat exchangers do not have 

leaks at all, some have small leaks, and 

some have large leaks. We compared 

emission estimates using a variety of 

methods and determined that the 

baseline and controlled emission 

estimates were as accurate and unbiased 

as we could develop. 

The commenters also incorrectly 

characterized our emission estimates 

with respect to repair times. For cooling 

towers that were assumed to be repaired 

as soon as possible, we used the full 45- 

day repair allowance plus 15 days (onehalf the monitoring frequency) for 

estimating the duration of the leak. 

Leaks may occur any time between 

monitoring events, but 15 days provides 

the best estimate of the average leak 

duration prior to identifying the leak. 

Once a refinery owner or operator 

measures a leak and identifies its 

source, they will also know what 

actions are needed to reduce the leak. In 

some instances, the refinery owner or 

operator will find that the cost of 

repairing the leak is easily offset by the 

recovery of the leaking product or 

process stream. In these cases, the 

refinery owner or operator will elect to 

repair the leak rather than delay repair. 

While data are limited, our best 

engineering estimate is that roughly 50 

percent of leaks will be repaired within 

the first 45 days simply because it is 

economical to do so. For the 50 percent 

of leaks for which repair is delayed, 120 

days was used as the duration of the 

leak when estimating the emissions 

from these units. 

With respect to the TCEQ data, we are 

confident that the controlled AP–42 

emission factors were generally used. 

Public comments were received on the 

original proposal requesting that 

corrections be made to the emissions 

data for the highest emitting cooling 

towers in the TCEQ dataset because the 

uncontrolled AP–42 emission factor had 

been incorrectly used, and that the 

controlled AP–42 emission factor 

should be used. We also note that 

TCEQ’s 2006 guidance on use of AP–42 

emission factors cited by the commenter 

came out well after the 2004 inventory 

was developed, so its use was not 

possible. Finally we note that, if the 

TCEQ inventory estimates were based 

on uncontrolled emission factors, then 

the 352 ton/yr projection from the TCEQ 

data would be the upper-end of the 

range, which would make the baseline 

emission estimate lower, not higher. 

Finally, while leaks from heat 

exchangers that give rise to cooling 

tower emissions are inherently random 

and variable, our analysis was 

specifically designed to provide an 

estimate of the long-term (life-time) 

exposure from cooling tower emissions. 

Assuming that all leaks come from a 

specific unit with high HAP content, 

that all leaks are big, and that all repairs 

will be delayed provides a completely 

unrealistic picture of long-term 

emissions. When assessing short-term 

exposure, we multiplied our long-term 

emissions by a factor of 10, which 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
55680 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

effectively accounts for the variability in 

emissions cited by the commenters. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

cooling tower emission reductions are 

estimated by EPA to be 4 to 10 percent, 

but the GHASP Report 2006 shows 

reductions on the order of 90 percent. 

As such, the commenter suggested that 

the emission and emission reduction 

estimates are unreasonable and 

conclusions drawn from the emission 

estimates are unreliable. 

Response: The analysis includes all 

emission sources covered under the 

Refinery MACT 1 regulation. If, at 

baseline, cooling towers represent only 

5 percent of a refineries HAP emissions, 

a 90-percent reduction in cooling tower 

emissions would only result in a 4.5- 

percent reduction in the nationwide 

baseline HAP emissions from refineries. 

The cooling tower impact memo (Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146– 

0143) indicates that the proposed MACT 

requirements for cooling towers will 

result in an 82-percent reduction in 

VOC and HAP emissions from cooling 

towers, which is in reasonable 

agreement with the reduction estimates 

in the GHASP Report 2006. 

B. General Provisions Applicability 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the revisions to Table 6 of Refinery 

MACT 1 in the supplemental proposal 

but had a few suggested revisions. First, 

the commenter noted that EPA proposed 

that §§ 63.5(d)(1)(iii), (2), and (3)(ii) 

apply to Refinery MACT 1. The 

commenter stated that this change 

would require owners and operators to 

include considerable emission and 

control information in requests to 

construct or reconstruct, and this 

information has not previously been 

required. In particular, the commenter 

noted that the proposal to require 

measured emission data in the Notice of 

Compliance Status required by 

§ 63.5(d)(1)(iii) would be very costly, 

and the permitting authority is the best 

party to identify where testing is 

required to confirm mass emission 

limitations are being met. The 

commenter recommended that EPA not 

finalize this proposed requirement; if 

finalized, the requirements should only 

apply to construction or reconstruction 

that commenced after September 7, 

2007. 

Second, the commenter stated that 

§ 63.8(b)(2), which EPA proposed 

should apply to Refinery MACT 1, 

specifies monitoring location 

requirements that may conflict with 

existing monitoring locations. If owners 

or operators do not already have 

monitors in locations that comply with 

§ 63.8(b)(2), they could be out of 

compliance on the date these 

requirements are finalized. The 

commenter noted that EPA has not 

evaluated the impacts of these efforts, 

and no additional compliance time has 

been provided, so EPA should not 

finalize this proposal. 

Finally, the commenter noted that 

EPA proposed to require Refinery 

MACT 1 sources to comply with 

§§ 63.1(b)(3) and 63.10(b)(3), which 

require owners and operators to keep 

‘‘negative’’ records. The commenter 

stated that these records serve no 

purpose and have not been kept in the 

past. 

Response: We have reviewed the 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A) and Table 6 of Refinery 

MACT 1 as included in the 

supplemental proposal, and we have 

determined that the emission estimates 

in § 63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H) and the emission 

measurements in § 63.5(d)(1)(iii) are not 

necessary. Given the types of emission 

sources affected by Refinery MACT 1, 

estimating the emissions ‘‘* * * in 

units and averaging times specified by 

the relevant standard’’ is not relevant for 

most of the sources. The permitting 

authority has a right to require HAP 

emission estimates for Refinery MACT 1 

process units, but the permitting 

authority has discretion on what 

emission estimates are needed. 

Paragraph 63.5(d)(1)(iii) is unworkable 

for most Refinery MACT 1 emission 

sources as these sources do not lend 

themselves to direct emission 

measurements. However, the 

information required under § 63.5(d)(2) 

and (3) is reasonable and necessary 

information needed by permitting 

agencies and we are including these 

requirements from the General 

Provisions in Table 6 of Refinery MACT 

1 in the final amendments. 

Paragraph 63.8(b)(2) provides specific 

guidelines and options for monitoring 

when emissions from two or more 

affected sources are combined before 

being released into the air. While 

Refinery MACT 1 does specify locations 

to conduct monitoring, it does not 

address instances where multiple 

emission sources are combined. We find 

that § 63.8(b)(2) provides useful 

guidance that does not contradict or 

otherwise alter the monitoring locations 

specified in Refinery MACT 1. As such, 

we are specifying in Table 6 of Refinery 

MACT 1 that § 63.8(b)(2) applies. 

We agree with the commenter that 

§§ 63.1(b)(3) and 63.10(b)(3) should not 

apply because the records required in 

these sections apply to applicability 

determinations that have long been 

completed and the records required 

under these sections would no longer 

need to be retained because they would 

be over 5 years old. Furthermore, the 

amendments specify the records needed 

for the new heat exchange system 

requirements specified under these 

sections are not necessary. 

V. Summary of Impacts 

The total capital investment cost of 

the final amendments is estimated at 

$16 million. The total annualized cost of 

the controls required by the final 

amendments is expected to be $3.0 

million, which includes $2.2 million 

credit for recovery of lost product and 

the annualized cost of capital. The final 

amendments will achieve a nationwide 

HAP emission reduction of about 630 

ton/yr with a concurrent reduction in 

VOC emissions of about 4,100 ton/yr. 

Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the 

cost and emission reduction impacts of 

the final standards. 

TABLE 1—NATIONWIDE IMPACTS OF HEAT EXCHANGE SYSTEM STANDARDS

Affected source 

Total capital 

investment 

($ million) 

Total 

annualized 

cost without 

recovery 

($ million) 

Product 

recovery 

credit 

($ million) 

Total 

annualized 

costs 

($ million/yr) 

HAP emission 

reductions 

(ton/yr) 

Costeffectiveness 

($/ton HAP) 

Heat exchange systems .......................... 16 5.2 (2.2) 3.0 630 4,700 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 55681 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

it may raise novel legal or policy issues. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Executive 

Order 12866, and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this rule will be 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq. The information collection 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. 

The information requirements in the 

final amendments include monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting provisions 

for cooling towers. Owners or operators 

of cooling towers must conduct monthly 

monitoring of each heat exchanger to 

identify and repair leaks. Records of 

monitoring and repair data also must be 

kept. All respondents must submit onetime notifications and semiannual 

compliance reports. 

The information collection 

requirements in this final rule are 

needed by EPA and delegated 

authorities to determine that 

compliance has been achieved. The 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in this final rule are based 

on the information collection 

requirements in the part 63 General 

Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). 

The recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in the General Provisions 

are mandatory pursuant to section 114 

of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All 

information submitted to EPA pursuant 

to the information collection 

requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is safeguarded according 

to CAA section 114(c) and the Agency’s 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 

2, subpart B. 

The annual burden for this 

information collection averaged over the 

first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to 

total 13,647 labor hours per year at a 

cost of $1,048,783 for one new refinery 

and 153 existing refineries. The average 

annual reporting burden is 2,825.72 

labor hours for 154 total annual 

responses; the average annual burden 

per response is 18.35 hours. Responses 

include Notifications of Compliance 

Status for cooling towers at new and 

existing refineries and semiannual 

compliance reports containing 

information on cooling towers at new 

and existing refineries. Capital/startup 

costs are estimated at $16,306,000. The 

operation and maintenance costs 

associated with the final rule 

amendments are estimated at $61,711. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. 

EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR 

part 9 of currently approved ICR control 

numbers issued by OMB for various 

regulations to list the information 

requirements contained in this final 

rule. This amendment updates the table 

to list the information collection 

requirements being promulgated today 

as amendments to the NESHAP for 

petroleum refineries. 

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 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 will 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 final rule on small 

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

small business that meets the Small 

Business Administration size standards 

for small businesses at 13 CFR 121.201 

(a firm having no more than 1,500 

employees); (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district, or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Based on our economic impact analysis, 

the amendments will result in a 

nationwide net annualized cost of about 

$3.0 million, which includes a credit of 

about $2.2 million per year from 

reductions in product losses. Of the 24 

small entities that would incur 

annualized costs as a result of the final 

amendments, annualized costs for each 

of them are below 0.02 percent of 

revenues; therefore, no adverse 

economic impacts are expected for any 

small entity. Thus, the costs associated 

with the final amendments will not 

result in any ‘‘significant’’ adverse 

economic impact for any small or large 

entity. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This final rule 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 result 

in nationwide costs of $3.0 million per 

year for the private sector. Thus, the 

final rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA). 

This rule 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 

final amendments contain no 

requirements that apply to such 

governments, and impose no obligations 

upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ 

The final amendments do not have 

federalism implications. They would 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
55682 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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. These final 

amendments add control and 

performance demonstration 

requirements. They do not modify 

existing responsibilities or create new 

responsibilities among EPA Regional 

offices, States, or local enforcement 

agencies. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to the final amendments. 

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 final amendments 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. 

The final amendments impose no 

requirements on tribal governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866, and because the Agency 

does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. 

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. Further, 

we have concluded that the final 

amendments are not likely to have any 

adverse energy effects because they 

result in overall savings due to product 

recovery. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law No. 

104–113, (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

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 EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency does not use available 

and applicable VCS. 

This final rule involves technical 

standards. EPA has decided 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 63.14). 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 utilizes 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 utilizing gas chromatography 

and/or mass spectrometry techniques, 

have been shown to be effective for 

cooling tower measurements of heavier 

molecular weight organic compounds 

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 140 °F. 

Under §§ 63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart 

A of the General Provisions, a source 

may apply to 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 final 

rule and amendments. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. 

This rulemaking will achieve 

significant reductions of HAP emissions 

from cooling towers located at 

petroleum refineries. Exposure to HAP 

emissions raises concerns regarding 

environmental health for the United 

States population in general, including 

the minority populations and lowincome populations that are the focus of 

the Environmental Justice Executive 

Order. 

The emission reductions from the 

new standards finalized in the 

petroleum refinery rule will have 

beneficial effects on communities in 

proximity to petroleum refineries, 

including low-income and minority 

communities. For example, the new 

standards for cooling towers will reduce 

air toxics emissions from petroleum 

refineries by 630 tons and VOC 

emissions by 4,100 tons annually. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this final rule and 

other required information to the United 

States Senate, the United States House 

of Representatives, and the Comptroller 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 55683 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. A major rule cannot 

take effect until 60 days after it is 

published in the Federal Register. This 

action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will 

be effective on October 28, 2009. 

List of Subject for 40 CFR Parts 9 and 

63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: October 15, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is 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 Section 9.1 is amended 

by: 

■ a. Removing the entry for 63.654 

under the heading ‘‘National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Source Categories’’; and 

■ b. Adding an entry for 63.655 in 

numerical order under the indicated 

heading to read as follows: 

§ 9.1 OMB Approvals under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

40 CFR citation OMB control 

No. 

* * * * * 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories 3

* * * * * 

63.655 ................................... 2060–0340 

* * * * * 

3 The ICRs referenced in this section of the 

table encompass the applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, 

which are not independent information collection requirements. 

* * * * * 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—[Amended] 

■ 4. Section 63.14 is amended by adding 

paragraph (n) to read as follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(n) The following material is available 

from the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Library, 

Post Office Box 13087, Austin, Texas 

78711–3087, telephone number (512) 

239–0028 or at http:// 

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

implementation/air/sip/sipdocs/2002- 

12-HGB/02046sipapp_ado.pdf: 

(1) ‘‘Air Stripping Method (Modified 

El Paso Method) for Determination of 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

from Water Sources,’’ Revision Number 

One, dated January 2003, Sampling 

Procedures Manual, Appendix P: 

Cooling Tower Monitoring, prepared by 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality, January 31, 2003, IBR approved 

for § 63.654(c)(1) and (g)(4)(i) of subpart 

CC of this part. 

(2) [Reserved] 

Subpart CC—[Amended] 

■ 5. Section 63.640 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(2); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory 

text; 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (c)(6) and 

(c)(7); 

■ e. Adding paragraph (c)(8); 

■ f. Revising paragraphs (e) introductory 

text, and (e)(2)(iii); 

■ g. Revising paragraphs (f) introductory 

text, and (f)(5); 

■ h. Revising paragraph (h) introductory 

text; 

■ i. Revising paragraphs (h)(1) and 

(h)(2); 

■ j. Revising paragraph (h)(4); 

■ k. Adding paragraph (h)(6); 

■ l. Revising paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2)(i), 

(k)(2)(ii), (k)(2)(iii), and the first 

sentence in paragraph (k)(2)(vi); 

■ m. Revising paragraphs (l) 

introductory text, and (l)(2)(i), the first 

sentence in paragraph (l)(2)(ii), the first 

sentence in paragraph (l)(3) introductory 

text, paragraphs (l)(3)(i) and (l)(3)(ii), the 

first sentence in paragraph (l)(3)(vi), and 

the first sentence in paragraph (l)(3)(vii); 

and 

■ n. Revising paragraph (p) 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)(5) through (c)(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: 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) The determination of applicability 

of this subpart to petroleum refining 

process units that are designed and 

operated as flexible operation units 

shall be reported as specified in 

§ 63.655(h)(6)(i). 

(c) For the purposes of this subpart, 

the affected source shall comprise all 

emissions points, in combination, listed 

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

section that are located at a single 

refinery plant site. 

* * * * * 

(6) All marine vessel loading 

operations located at a petroleum 

refinery meeting the criteria in 

paragraph (a) of this section and the 

applicability criteria of subpart Y, 

§ 63.560; 

(7) All storage vessels and equipment 

leaks associated with a bulk gasoline 

terminal or pipeline breakout station 

classified under Standard Industrial 

Classification code 2911 located within 

a contiguous area and under common 

control with a refinery meeting the 

criteria in paragraph (a) of this section; 

and 

(8) All heat exchange systems 

associated with petroleum refining 

process units meeting the criteria in 

paragraph (a) of this section and which 

are in organic hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) service as defined in this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(e) The owner or operator of a storage 

vessel constructed on or before August 

18, 1994, shall follow the procedures 

specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) 

of this section to determine whether a 

storage vessel is part of a source to 

which this subpart applies. The owner 

or operator of a storage vessel 

constructed after August 18, 1994, shall 

follow the procedures specified in 

paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2)(i), and (e)(2)(ii) 

of this section to determine whether a 

storage vessel is part of a source to 

which this subpart applies. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) If the predominant use of a 

storage vessel varies from year to year, 

then the applicability of this subpart 

shall be determined based on the 

utilization of that storage vessel during 

the year preceding August 18, 1995. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
55684 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

This determination shall be reported as 

specified in § 63.655(h)(6)(ii). 

(f) The owner or operator of a 

distillation unit constructed on or before 

August 18, 1994, shall follow the 

procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) 

through (f)(4) of this section to 

determine whether a miscellaneous 

process vent from a distillation unit is 

part of a source to which this subpart 

applies. The owner or operator of a 

distillation unit constructed after 

August 18, 1994, shall follow the 

procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) 

through (f)(5) of this section to 

determine whether a miscellaneous 

process vent from a distillation unit is 

part of a source to which this subpart 

applies. 

* * * * * 

(5) If the predominant use of a 

distillation unit varies from year to year, 

then the applicability of this subpart 

shall be determined based on the 

utilization of that distillation unit 

during the year preceding August 18, 

1995. This determination shall be 

reported as specified in 

§ 63.655(h)(6)(iii). 

* * * * * 

(h) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(k), (l), or (m) of this section, sources 

subject to this subpart are required to 

achieve compliance on or before the 

dates specified in paragraphs (h)(1) 

through (h)(6) of this section. 

(1) Except as provided in paragraphs 

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

sources that commence construction or 

reconstruction after July 14, 1994, shall 

be in compliance with this subpart upon 

initial startup or August 18, 1995, 

whichever is later. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Heat exchange systems at new 

sources that commence construction or 

reconstruction after August 18, 1995, 

but before September 4, 2007, shall 

comply with the existing source 

requirements for heat exchange systems 

specified in § 63.654 no later than 

October 29, 2012. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) Heat exchange systems at new 

sources that commence construction or 

reconstruction after September 4, 2007, 

shall be in compliance with the new 

source requirements in § 63.654 upon 

initial startup or October 28, 2009, 

whichever is later. 

(2) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(h)(3) through (h)(6) of this section, 

existing sources shall be in compliance 

with this subpart no later than August 

18, 1998, except as provided in 

§ 63.6(c)(5) of subpart A of this part, or 

unless an extension has been granted by 

the Administrator as provided in 

§ 63.6(i) of subpart A of this part. 

* * * * * 

(4) Existing Group 1 floating roof 

storage vessels shall be in compliance 

with § 63.646 of this subpart at the first 

degassing and cleaning activity after 

August 18, 1998, or August 18, 2005, 

whichever is first. 

* * * * * 

(6) Heat exchange systems at an 

existing source shall be in compliance 

with the existing source standards in 

§ 63.654 no later than October 29, 2012. 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(1) The reconstructed source, 

addition, or change shall be in 

compliance with the new source 

requirements upon initial startup of the 

reconstructed source or by August 18, 

1995, whichever is later; and 

(2) * * * 

(i) The application for approval of 

construction or reconstruction shall be 

submitted as soon as practical before the 

construction or reconstruction is 

planned to commence (but it need not 

be sooner than November 16, 1995); 

(ii) The Notification of Compliance 

Status report as required by § 63.655(f) 

for a new source, addition, or change; 

(iii) Periodic Reports and other 

reports as required by § 63.655(g) and 

(h); 

* * * * * 

(vi) Reports and notifications required 

by § 63.428(b), (c), (g)(1), (h)(1) through 

(h)(3), and (k) of subpart R. * * * 

* * * * * 

(l) If an additional petroleum refining 

process unit is added to a plant site or 

if a miscellaneous process vent, storage 

vessel, gasoline loading rack, marine 

tank vessel loading operation, or heat 

exchange system that meets the criteria 

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

section is added to an existing 

petroleum refinery or if another 

deliberate operational process change 

creating an additional Group 1 

emissions point(s) (as defined in 

§ 63.641) is made to an existing 

petroleum refining process unit, and if 

the addition or process change is not 

subject to the new source requirements 

as determined according to paragraphs 

(i) or (j) of this section, the requirements 

in paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this 

section shall apply. Examples of process 

changes include, but are not limited to, 

changes in production capacity, or feed 

or raw material where the change 

requires construction or physical 

alteration of the existing equipment or 

catalyst type, or whenever there is 

replacement, removal, or addition of 

recovery equipment. For purposes of 

this paragraph and paragraph (m) of this 

section, process changes do not include: 

Process upsets, unintentional temporary 

process changes, and changes that are 

within the equipment configuration and 

operating conditions documented in the 

Notification of Compliance Status report 

required by § 63.655(f). 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) If a petroleum refining process unit 

is added to a plant site or an emission 

point(s) is added to any existing 

petroleum refining process unit, the 

added emission point(s) shall be in 

compliance upon initial startup of any 

added petroleum refining process unit 

or emission point(s) or by August 18, 

1998, whichever is later. 

(ii) If a deliberate operational process 

change to an existing petroleum refining 

process unit causes a Group 2 emission 

point to become a Group 1 emission 

point (as defined in § 63.641), the owner 

or operator shall be in compliance upon 

initial startup or by August 18, 1998, 

whichever is later, unless the owner or 

operator demonstrates to the 

Administrator that achieving 

compliance will take longer than 

making the change.* * * 

(3) The owner or operator of a 

petroleum refining process unit or of a 

storage vessel, miscellaneous process 

vent, wastewater stream, gasoline 

loading rack, marine tank vessel loading 

operation, or heat exchange system 

meeting the criteria in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (8) of this section that is added 

to a plant site and is subject to the 

requirements for existing sources shall 

comply with the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements that are 

applicable to existing sources including, 

but not limited to, the reports listed in 

paragraphs (l)(3)(i) through (vii) of this 

section.* * * 

(i) The Notification of Compliance 

Status report as required by § 63.655(f) 

for the emission points that were added 

or changed; 

(ii) Periodic Reports and other reports 

as required by § 63.655(g) and (h); 

* * * * * 

(vi) Reports and notifications required 

by § 63.428(b), (c), (g)(1), (h)(1) through 

(h)(3), and (k) of subpart R. * * * 

(vii) Reports and notifications 

required by §§ 63.565 and 63.567 of 

subpart Y. * * * 

* * * * * 

(p) Overlap of subpart CC with other 

regulations for equipment leaks. 

(1) After the compliance dates 

specified in paragraph (h) of this 

section, equipment leaks that are also 

subject to the provisions of 40 CFR parts 

60 and 61 standards promulgated before 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 55685 

September 4, 2007, are required to 

comply only with the provisions 

specified in this subpart. 

(2) Equipment leaks that are also 

subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 

60, subpart GGGa, are required to 

comply only with the provisions 

specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

GGGa. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 63.641 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding, in alphabetical order, 

definitions for ‘‘Cooling tower,’’ 

‘‘Cooling tower return line,’’ ‘‘Heat 

exchange system,’’ and ‘‘Heat exchanger 

exit line’’; and 

■ b. Revising the definition of 

‘‘Continuous record’’ to read as follows: 

§ 63.641 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Continuous record means 

documentation, either in hard copy or 

computer readable form, of data values 

measured at least once every hour and 

recorded at the frequency specified in 

§ 63.655(i). 

* * * * * 

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 series of devices used to transfer heat 

from process fluids to water without 

intentional direct contact of the process 

fluid with the water (i.e., non-contact 

heat exchanger) and to transport and/or 

cool the water in a closed-loop 

recirculation system (cooling tower 

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

river or pond water). For closed-loop 

recirculation systems, the heat exchange 

system consists of a cooling tower, all 

heat exchangers that are serviced by that 

cooling tower, and all water lines to and 

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

system consists of one or more heat 

exchangers servicing an individual 

process unit and all water lines to and 

from the heat exchanger(s). Intentional 

direct contact with process fluids results 

in the formation of a wastewater. 

Heat exchanger exit line means the 

cooling water line from the exit of one 

or more heat exchangers (where cooling 

water leaves the heat exchangers) to 

either the entrance of the cooling tower 

return line or prior to exposure to the 

atmosphere, in, as an example, a oncethrough cooling system, whichever 

occurs first. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 63.642 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (k)(1) and (l)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.642 General standards. 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(1) The owner or operator using this 

compliance approach shall also comply 

with the requirements of § 63.655 as 

applicable. 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(2) Comply with the requirements of 

§§ 63.652, 63.653, and 63.655, as 

applicable. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 63.644 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (c)(1); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (d); and 

■ d. Revising paragraph (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.644 Monitoring provisions for 

miscellaneous process vents. 

* * * * * 

(b) An owner or operator of a Group 

1 miscellaneous process vent may 

request approval to monitor parameters 

other than those listed in paragraph (a) 

of this section. The request shall be 

submitted according to the procedures 

specified in § 63.655(h). Approval shall 

be requested if the owner or operator: 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a flow indicator that determines 

whether a vent stream flow is present at 

least once every hour. Records shall be 

generated as specified in § 63.655(h) and 

(i). The flow indicator shall be installed 

at the entrance to any bypass line that 

could divert the vent stream away from 

the control device to the atmosphere; or 

* * * * * 

(d) The owner or operator shall 

establish a range that ensures 

compliance with the emissions standard 

for each parameter monitored under 

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

order to establish the range, the 

information required in § 63.655(f)(3) 

shall be submitted in the Notification of 

Compliance Status report. 

(e) Each owner or operator of a control 

device subject to the monitoring 

provisions of this section shall operate 

the control device in a manner 

consistent with the minimum and/or 

maximum operating parameter value or 

procedure required to be monitored 

under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

section. Operation of the control device 

in a manner that constitutes a period of 

excess emissions, as defined in 

§ 63.655(g)(6), or failure to perform 

procedures required by this section 

shall constitute a violation of the 

applicable emission standard of this 

subpart. 

■ 9. Section 63.645 is amended by 

revising paragraph (h)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.645 Test methods and procedures for 

miscellaneous process vents. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(2) Where the recalculated TOC 

emission rate is greater than 33 

kilograms per day for an existing source 

or greater than 6.8 kilograms per day for 

a new source, the owner or operator 

shall submit a report as specified in 

§ 63.655(f), (g), or (h) and shall comply 

with the appropriate provisions in 

§ 63.643 by the dates specified in 

§ 63.640. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Section 63.646 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.646 Storage vessel provisions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) An owner or operator may use 

good engineering judgment or test 

results to determine the stored liquid 

weight percent total organic HAP for 

purposes of group determination. Data, 

assumptions, and procedures used in 

the determination shall be documented. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 63.650 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows. 

§ 63.650 Gasoline loading rack provisions. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(b) through (c) of this section, each 

owner or operator of a Group 1 gasoline 

loading rack classified under Standard 

Industrial Classification code 2911 

located within a contiguous area and 

under common control with a 

petroleum refinery shall comply with 

subpart R, §§ 63.421, 63.422(a) through 

(c) and (e), 63.425(a) through (c) and (i), 

63.425(e) through (h), 63.427(a) and (b), 

and 63.428(b), (c), (g)(1), (h)(1) through 

(3), and (k). 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Section 63.651 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.651 Marine tank vessel loading 

operation provisions. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(b) through (d) of this section, each 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
55686 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

owner or operator of a marine tank 

vessel loading operation located at a 

petroleum refinery shall comply with 

the requirements of §§ 63.560 through 

63.568. 

* * * * * 

(c) The notification reports under 

§ 63.567(b) are not required. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Section 63.652 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (e)(5); 

■ c. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (f)(3) introductory text; 

■ d. Revising the first sentence in 

paragraph (g)(5)(ii)(B)(1); and 

■ e. Revising paragraph (l)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.652 Emissions averaging provisions. 

(a) This section applies to owners or 

operators of existing sources who seek 

to comply with the emission standard in 

§ 63.642(g) by using emissions averaging 

according to § 63.642(l) rather than 

following the provisions of §§ 63.643 

through 63.647, and §§ 63.650 and 

63.651. Existing marine tank vessel 

loading operations located at the Valdez 

Marine Terminal source may not 

comply with the standard by using 

emissions averaging. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(5) Record and report quarterly and 

annual credits and debits in the Periodic 

Reports as specified in § 63.655(g)(8). 

Every fourth Periodic Report shall 

include a certification of compliance 

with the emissions averaging provisions 

as required by § 63.655(g)(8)(iii). 

(f) * * * 

(3) For emission points for which 

continuous monitors are used, periods 

of excess emissions as defined in 

§ 63.655(g)(6)(i). * * * 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(1) The percent reduction for a control 

device shall be measured according to 

the procedures and test methods 

specified in § 63.565(d) of subpart Y. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(1) The owner or operator shall notify 

the Administrator of excess emissions in 

the Periodic Reports as required in 

§ 63.655(g)(6). 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Section 63.653 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(7); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (c); and 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (d) 

introductory text, (d)(2)(vii) 

introductory text, and (d)(2)(viii)(G) to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.653 Monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

implementation plan for emissions 

averaging. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(7) If an emission point in an 

emissions average is controlled using a 

pollution prevention measure or a 

device or technique for which no 

monitoring parameters or inspection 

procedures are specified in §§ 63.643 

through 63.647 and §§ 63.650 and 

63.651, the owner or operator shall 

establish a site-specific monitoring 

parameter and shall submit the 

information specified in § 63.655(h)(4) 

in the Implementation Plan. 

(b) Records of all information required 

to calculate emission debits and credits 

and records required by § 63.655 shall 

be retained for 5 years. 

(c) Notifications of Compliance Status 

report, Periodic Reports, and other 

reports shall be submitted as required 

by § 63.655. 

(d) Each owner or operator of an 

existing source who elects to comply 

with § 63.655(g) and (h) by using 

emissions averaging for any emission 

points shall submit an Implementation 

Plan. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(vii) The information specified in 

§ 63.655(h)(4) for: 

* * * * * 

(viii) * * * 

(G) For each pollution prevention 

measure, treatment process, or control 

device used to reduce air emissions of 

organic HAP from wastewater and for 

which no monitoring parameters or 

inspection procedures are specified in 

§ 63.647, the information specified in 

§ 63.655(h)(4) shall be included in the 

Implementation Plan. 

* * * * * 

§§ 63.654 and 63.655 [Redesignated as 

§§ 63.655 and 63.656] 

■ 15. Sections 63.654 and 63.655 are 

redesignated as §§ 63.655 and 63.656. 

■ 16. Section 63.654 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.654 Heat exchange systems. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(b) of this section, the owner or operator 

of a heat exchange system that meets the 

criteria in § 63.640(c)(8) must comply 

with the requirements of paragraphs (c) 

through (g) of this section. 

(b) A heat exchange system is exempt 

from the requirements in paragraphs (c) 

through (g) of this section if it meets any 

one of the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (2) of this section. 

(1) All heat exchangers that are in 

organic HAP service within the heat 

exchange system that either: 

(i) Operate with the minimum 

pressure on the cooling water side at 

least 35 kilopascals greater than the 

maximum pressure on the process side; 

or 

(ii) Employ an intervening cooling 

fluid, containing less than 5 percent by 

weight of total HAP listed in Table 1 to 

this subpart, between the process and 

the cooling water. This intervening fluid 

must serve to isolate the cooling water 

from the process fluid and must not be 

sent through a cooling tower or 

discharged. For purposes of this section, 

discharge does not include emptying for 

maintenance purposes. 

(2) The heat exchange system cools 

process fluids that contain less than 5 

percent by weight of total HAP listed in 

Table 1 to this subpart (i.e., the heat 

exchange system does not contain any 

heat exchangers that are in organic HAP 

service as defined in this subpart). 

(c) The owner or operator must 

perform monthly monitoring to identify 

leaks of total strippable volatile organic 

compound (VOC) from each heat 

exchange system subject to the 

requirements of this subpart according 

to the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(1) Collect and analyze a sample from 

each cooling tower return line prior to 

exposure to air for each heat exchange 

system in organic HAP service or from 

each heat exchanger exit line for each 

heat exchanger or group of heat 

exchangers in organic HAP service 

within that heat exchange system to 

determine the total strippable VOC 

concentration (as methane) from the air 

stripping testing system using ‘‘Air 

Stripping Method (Modified El Paso 

Method) for Determination of Volatile 

Organic Compound Emissions from 

Water Sources’’ Revision Number One, 

dated January 2003, Sampling 

Procedures Manual, Appendix P: 

Cooling Tower Monitoring, prepared by 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality, January 31, 2003 (incorporated 

by reference—see § 63.14). The owner or 

operator of a once-through heat 

exchange system may elect to also 

monitor monthly (in addition to 

monitoring each heat exchanger exit 

line) the fresh water feed line prior to 

any heat exchanger to determine the 

total strippable VOC concentration (as 

methane) prior to the heat exchange 

system using the Modified El Paso 

Method. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 55687 

(2) For a heat exchange system at an 

existing source, a leak is a total 

strippable VOC concentration (as 

methane) in the stripping gas of 6.2 

ppmv or greater. For a heat exchange 

system at a new source, a leak is a total 

strippable VOC concentration (as 

methane) in the stripping gas of 3.1 

ppmv or greater. 

(d) If a leak is detected, the owner or 

operator 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. Actions that can be taken to 

achieve repair include but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Physical modifications to the 

leaking heat exchanger, such as welding 

the leak or replacing a tube; 

(2) Blocking the leaking tube within 

the heat exchanger; 

(3) Changing the pressure so that 

water flows into the process fluid; 

(4) Replacing the heat exchanger or 

heat exchanger bundle; or 

(5) Isolating, bypassing, or otherwise 

removing the leaking heat exchanger 

from service until it is otherwise 

repaired. 

(e) If the owner or operator detects a 

leak when monitoring a cooling tower 

return line under paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section, the owner or operator may 

conduct additional monitoring to 

identify leaks of total strippable VOC 

emissions using Modified El Paso 

Method from each heat exchanger or 

group of heat exchangers in organic 

HAP service associated with the heat 

exchange system for which the leak was 

detected. If the additional monitoring 

shows that the total strippable VOC 

concentration in the stripped air at the 

heat exchanger exit line for each heat 

exchanger in organic HAP service is less 

than 6.2 ppmv for existing sources or 

less than 3.1 ppmv for new sources, the 

heat exchange system is excluded from 

repair requirements in paragraph (d) of 

this section. 

(f) The owner or operator may delay 

the repair of a leaking heat exchanger 

when one of the conditions in 

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

section is met. The owner or operator 

must determine if a delay of repair is 

necessary as soon as practicable, but no 

later than 45 days after first identifying 

the leak. 

(1) If the repair is technically 

infeasible without a shutdown and the 

total strippable VOC concentration (as 

methane) is initially and remains less 

than 62 ppmv for all monthly 

monitoring periods during the delay of 

repair, the owner or operator may delay 

repair until the next scheduled 

shutdown of the heat exchange system. 

If, during subsequent monthly 

monitoring, the total strippable VOC 

concentration (as methane) is 62 ppmv 

or greater, the owner or operator must 

repair the leak within 30 days of the 

monitoring event in which the leak was 

equal to or exceeded 62 ppmv total 

strippable VOC (as methane), except as 

provided in paragraph (f)(3) of this 

section. 

(2) If the necessary equipment, parts, 

or personnel are not available and the 

total strippable VOC concentration (as 

methane) is initially and remains less 

than 62 ppmv for all monthly 

monitoring periods during the delay of 

repair, the owner or operator may delay 

the repair for a maximum of 120 

calendar days. The owner or operator 

must demonstrate that the necessary 

equipment, parts, or personnel were not 

available. If, during subsequent monthly 

monitoring, the total strippable VOC 

concentration (as methane) is 62 ppmv 

or greater, the owner or operator must 

repair the leak within 30 days of the 

monitoring event in which the leak was 

equal to or exceeded 62 ppmv total 

strippable VOC (as methane). 

(g) To delay the repair under 

paragraph (f) of this section, the owner 

or operator must record the information 

in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(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 monthly monitoring 

events during the delay of repair. 

(4) An estimate of the potential 

emissions from the leaking heat 

exchange system or heat exchanger 

following the procedures in paragraphs 

(g)(4)(i) and (g)(4)(ii) of this section. 

(i) Determine the total strippable VOC 

concentration in the cooling water, in 

parts per million by weight (ppmw), 

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 § 63.14), based on the 

total strippable concentration in the 

stripped air, ppmv, from monitoring. 

(ii) Calculate the VOC emissions for 

the leaking heat exchange system or 

heat exchanger by multiplying the VOC 

concentration in the cooling water, 

ppmw, by the flow rate of the cooling 

water from the leaking tower or heat 

exchanger and by the expected duration 

of the delay. 

■ 17. Newly redesignated § 63.655 is 

amended by: 

■ a. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (b); 

■ b. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (c); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (f)(1) 

introductory text; 

■ d. Adding paragraph (f)(1)(vi); 

■ e. Revising paragraphs (g) 

introductory text and (g)(8)(ii)(C); 

■ g. Adding paragraph (g)(9); 

■ h. Redesignating existing paragraph 

(i)(4) as (i)(5); and 

■ i. Adding paragraph (i)(4) to read as 

follows. 

§ 63.655 Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) Each owner or operator subject to 

the gasoline loading rack provisions in 

§ 63.650 shall comply with the 

recordkeeping and reporting provisions 

in § 63.428 (b) and (c), (g)(1), (h)(1) 

through (h)(3), and (k) of subpart 

R.* * * 

(c) Each owner or operator subject to 

the marine tank vessel loading operation 

standards in § 63.651 shall comply with 

the recordkeeping and reporting 

provisions in § 63.567(a) and § 63.567(c) 

through (k) of subpart Y.* * * 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) The Notification of Compliance 

Status report shall include the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(vi) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(vi) For each heat exchange system, 

identification of the heat exchange 

systems that are subject to the 

requirements of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(g) The owner or operator of a source 

subject to this subpart shall submit 

Periodic Reports no later than 60 days 

after the end of each 6-month period 

when any of the compliance exceptions 

specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through 

(6) of this section or paragraph (g)(9) of 

this section occur. The first 6-month 

period shall begin on the date the 

Notification of Compliance Status report 

is required to be submitted. A Periodic 

Report is not required if none of the 

compliance exceptions identified in 

paragraph (g)(1) through (6) of this 

section or paragraph (g)(9) of this 

section occurred during the 6-month 

period unless emissions averaging is 

utilized. Quarterly reports must be 

submitted for emission points included 

in emission averages, as provided in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
55688 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

paragraph (g)(8) of this section. An 

owner or operator may submit reports 

required by other regulations in place of 

or as part of the Periodic Report 

required by this paragraph if the reports 

contain the information required by 

paragraphs (g)(1) through (9) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(8) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) The information required to be 

reported by § 63.567(e)(4) and (j)(3) of 

subpart Y for each marine tank vessel 

loading operation included in an 

emissions average, unless the 

information has already been submitted 

in a separate report; 

* * * * * 

(9) For heat exchange systems, 

Periodic Reports must include the 

following information: 

(i) The number of heat exchange 

systems in HAP service. 

(ii) The number of heat exchange 

systems in HAP service found to be 

leaking. 

(iii) 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 § 63.654(c)(2); 

(iv) If applicable, the date a leak was 

identified, the date the source of the 

leak was identified, and the date of 

repair; 

(v) 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; and 

(vi) If applicable, an estimate of VOC 

emissions for each delayed repair over 

the reporting period. 

* * * * * 

(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 paragraphs (i)(4)(i) 

through (vi) of this section. 

(i) Identification of all heat 

exchangers at the facility and the 

average annual HAP concentration of 

process fluid or intervening cooling 

fluid estimated when developing the 

Notification of Compliance Status 

report. 

(ii) Identification of all heat exchange 

systems that are in organic HAP service. 

For each heat exchange system that is 

subject to this subpart, this must 

include identification of all heat 

exchangers within each heat exchange 

system, identification of the individual 

heat exchangers in organic HAP service 

within each heat exchange system, and, 

for closed-loop recirculation systems, 

the cooling tower included in each heat 

exchange system. 

(iii) Results of the following 

monitoring data for each monthly 

monitoring event: 

(A) Date/time of event. 

(B) Barometric pressure. 

(C) El Paso air stripping apparatus 

water flow (ml/min) and air flow, ml/ 

min, and air temperature, °C. 

(D) FID reading (ppmv). 

(E) Heat exchange exit line flow or 

cooling tower return line flow at the El 

Paso monitoring location, gal/min. 

(F) Calibration information identified 

in Section 5.4.2 of the Modified El Paso 

Method, incorporated by reference in 

§ 63.14(n). 

(iv) The date when a leak was 

identified and the date when the heat 

exchanger was repaired or taken out of 

service. 

(vi) 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Newly redesignated § 63.656 is 

amended by revising the first sentence 

of paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 63.656 Implementation and enforcement. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Approval of alternatives to the 

requirements in §§ 63.640, 63.642(g) 

through (l), 63.643, 63.646 through 

63.652, and 63.654. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Tables 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the 

appendix to subpart CC are revised and 

footnotes d, f, and g to table 10 are 

revised to read as follows: 

Appendix to Subpart CC of Part 63— 

Tables 

TABLE 1—HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS

Chemical name CAS No.a

Benzene .................................... 71432 

Biphenyl .................................... 92524 

Butadiene (1,3) ......................... 106990 

Carbon disulfide ........................ 75150 

Carbonyl sulfide ........................ 463581 

Cresol (mixed isomers b) .......... 1319773 

Cresol (m-) ................................ 108394 

Cresol (o-) ................................. 95487 

Cresol (p-) ................................. 106445 

Cumene .................................... 98828 

Dibromoethane (1,2) (ethylene 

dibromide) ............................. 106934 

Dichloroethane (1,2) ................. 107062 

Diethanolamine ......................... 111422 

Ethylbenzene ............................ 100414 

Ethylene glycol ......................... 107211 

Hexane ..................................... 110543 

Methanol ................................... 67561 

Methyl isobutyl ketone (hexone) 108101 

Methyl tert butyl ether ............... 1634044 

Naphthalene ............................. 91203 

Phenol ....................................... 108952 

Toluene ..................................... 108883 

Trimethylpentane (2,2,4) .......... 540841 

Xylene (mixed isomers b) .......... 1330207 

xylene (m-) ................................ 108383 

xylene (o-) ................................. 95476 

xylene (p-) ................................. 106423 

a CAS number = Chemical Abstract Service 

registry number assigned to specific compounds, isomers, or mixtures of compounds. b Isomer means all structural arrangements 

for the same number of atoms of each element and does not mean salts, esters, or 

derivatives. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 4—GASOLINE DISTRIBUTION EMISSION POINT RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a

Reference (section of 

subpart Y) Description Comment 

63.428(b) or (k) .................... Records of test results for each gasoline cargo tank 

loaded at the facility.

63.428(c) .............................. Continuous monitoring data recordkeeping requirements.

63.428(g)(1) ......................... Semiannual report loading rack information ................... Required to be submitted with the Periodic Report required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. 

63.428(h)(1) through (h)(3) .. Excess emissions report loading rack information ......... Required to be submitted with the Periodic Report required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. 

aThis table does not include all the requirements delineated under the referenced sections. See referenced sections for specific requirements. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 55689 

TABLE 5—MARINE VESSEL LOADING OPERATIONS RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a

Reference (section of subpart Y) Description Comment 

63.562(e)(2) ......................... Operation and maintenance plan for control equipment 

and monitoring equipment.

63.565(a) .............................. Performance test/site test plan ....................................... The information required under this paragraph is to be 

submitted with the Notification of Compliance Status 

report required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. 

63.565(b) .............................. Performance test data requirements.

63.567(a) .............................. General Provisions (subpart A) applicability.

63.567(c) .............................. Request for extension of compliance.

63.567(d) .............................. Flare recordkeeping requirements.

63.567(e) .............................. Summary report and excess emissions and monitoring 

system performance report requirements.

The information required under this paragraph is to be 

submitted with the Periodic Report required under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart CC. 

63.567(f) ............................... Vapor collection system engineering report.

63.567(g) .............................. Vent system valve bypass recordkeeping requirements.

63.567(h) .............................. Marine vessel vapor-tightness documentation.

63.567(i) ............................... Documentation file maintenance.

63.567(j) ............................... Emission estimation reporting and recordkeeping procedures.

aThis table does not include all the requirements delineated under the referenced sections. See referenced sections for specific requirements. 

TABLE 6—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART CC a

Reference Applies to subpart 

CC Comment 

63.1(a)(1) ......................................... Yes.

63.1(a)(2) ......................................... Yes.

63.1(a)(3) ......................................... Yes.

63.1(a)(4) ......................................... Yes.

63.1(a)(5) ......................................... No ....................... Reserved. 

63.1(a)(6) ......................................... Yes ...................... Except the correct mail drop (MD) number is C404–04. 

63.1(a)(7)–63.1(a)(9) ........................ No ....................... Reserved. 

63.1(a)(10) ....................................... Yes.

63.1(a)(11) ....................................... Yes.

63.1(a)(12) ....................................... Yes.

63.1(b)(1) ......................................... Yes.

63.1(b)(2) ......................................... No ....................... Reserved. 

63.1(b)(3) ......................................... No.

63.1(c)(1) .......................................... Yes.

63.1(c)(2) .......................................... No ....................... Area sources are not subject to subpart CC. 

63.1(c)(3)–63.1(c)(4) ........................ No ....................... Reserved. 

63.1(c)(5) .......................................... Yes ...................... Except that sources are not required to submit notifications overridden by this table. 

63.1(d) .............................................. No ....................... Reserved. 

63.1(e) .............................................. No ....................... No CAA section 112(j) standard applies to the affected sources under subpart CC. 

63.2 .................................................. Yes ...................... § 63.641 of subpart CC specifies that if the same term is defined in subparts A and 

CC, it shall have the meaning given in subpart CC. 

63.3 .................................................. Yes.

63.4(a)(1)–63.4(a)(2) ........................ Yes.

63.4(a)(3)–63.4(a)(5) ........................ No ....................... Reserved. 

63.4(b) .............................................. Yes.

63.4(c) .............................................. Yes.

63.5(a) .............................................. Yes.

63.5(b)(1) ......................................... Yes.

63.5(b)(2) ......................................... No ....................... Reserved. 

63.5(b)(3) ......................................... Yes.

63.5(b)(4) ......................................... Yes ...................... Except the cross-reference to § 63.9(b) is changed to § 63.9(b)(4) and (5). Subpart 

CC overrides § 63.9 (b)(2). 

63.5(b)(5) ......................................... No ....................... Reserved. 

63.5(b)(6) ......................................... Yes.

63.5(c) .............................................. No ....................... Reserved. 

63.5(d)(1)(i) ...................................... Yes ...................... Except that the application shall be submitted as soon as practicable before startup, 

but no later than 90 days after the promulgation date of subpart CC if the construction or reconstruction had commenced and initial startup had not occurred before 

the promulgation of subpart CC. 

63.5(d)(1)(ii) ..................................... Yes ...................... Except that for affected sources subject to subpart CC, emission estimates specified 

in § 63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H) are not required. 

63.5(d)(1)(iii) ..................................... No ....................... Subpart CC § 63.655(f) specifies Notification of Compliance Status report requirements. 

63.5(d)(2) ......................................... Yes.

63.5(d)(3) ......................................... Yes.


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
55690 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 6—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART CC a—Continued 

Reference Applies to subpart 

CC Comment 

63.5(d)(4) ......................................... Yes.

63.5(e) .............................................. Yes.

63.5(f) ............................................... Yes.

63.6(a) .............................................. Yes.

63.6(b)(1)–63.6(b)(5) ........................ No ....................... Subpart CC specifies compliance dates and notifications for sources subject to subpart CC. 

63.6(b)(6) ......................................... No ....................... Reserved. 

63.6(b)(7) ......................................... Yes.

63.6(c)(1)–63.6(c)(2) ........................ No ....................... § 63.640 of subpart CC specifies the compliance date. 

63.6(c)(3)–63.6(c)(4) ........................ No ....................... Reserved. 

63.6(c)(5) .......................................... Yes ......................

63.6(d) .............................................. No ....................... Reserved. 

63.6(e)(1) ......................................... Yes ...................... Except the startup, shutdown, or malfunction plan does not apply to Group 2 emission points that are not part of an emissions averaging group.b

63.6(e)(2) ......................................... No ....................... Reserved. 

63.6(e)(3)(i) ...................................... Yes ...................... Except the startup, shutdown, or malfunction plan does not apply to Group 2 emission points that are not part of an emissions averaging group.b

63.6(e)(3)(ii) ..................................... No ....................... Reserved. 

63.6(e)(3)(iii)–63.6(e)(3)(ix) .............. Yes ...................... Except the reports specified in § 63.6(e)(3)(iv) do not need to be reported within 2 

and 7 days of commencing and completing the action, respectively, but must be included in the next periodic report. 

63.6 (f)(1) ......................................... Yes ...................... Except for the heat exchange system standards, which apply at all times. 

63.6(f)(2) and (3) .............................. Yes ...................... Except the phrase ‘‘as specified in § 63.7(c)’’ in § 63.6(f)(2)(iii)(D) does not apply because subpart CC does not require a site-specific test plan. 

63.6(g) .............................................. Yes.

63.6(h)(1) and 63.6(h)(2) ................. Yes ...................... Except § 63.6(h)(2)(ii), which is reserved. 

63.6(h)(3) ......................................... No ....................... Reserved. 

63.6(h)(4) ......................................... No ....................... Notification of visible emission test not required in subpart CC. 

63.6(h)(5) ......................................... No ....................... Visible emission requirements and timing is specified in § 63.645(i) of subpart CC. 

63.6(h)(6) ......................................... Yes.

63.6(h)(7) ......................................... No ....................... Subpart CC does not require opacity standards. 

63.6(h)(8) ......................................... Yes.

63.6(h)(9) ......................................... No ....................... Subpart CC does not require opacity standards. 

63.6(i) ............................................... Yes ...................... Except for § 63.6(i)(15), which is reserved. 

63.6(j) ............................................... Yes.

63.7(a)(1) ......................................... Yes.

63.7(a)(2) ......................................... Yes ...................... Except test results must be submitted in the Notification of Compliance Status report 

due 150 days after compliance date, as specified in § 63.655(f) of subpart CC. 

63.7(a)(3) ......................................... Yes.

63.7(a)(4) ......................................... Yes.

63.7(b) .............................................. No ....................... Subpart CC requires notification of performance test at least 30 days (rather than 60 

days) prior to the performance test. 

63.7(c) .............................................. No ....................... Subpart CC does not require a site-specific test plan. 

63.7(d) .............................................. Yes.

63.7(e)(1) ......................................... Yes ...................... Except the performance test must be conducted at the maximum representative capacity as specified in § 63.642(d)(3) of subpart CC. 

63.7(e)(2)–63.7(e)(4) ........................ Yes.

63.7(f) ............................................... No ....................... Subpart CC specifies applicable methods and provides alternatives without additional 

notification or approval. 

63.7(g) .............................................. No ....................... Performance test reporting specified in § 63.655(f). 

63.7(h)(1) ......................................... Yes.

63.7(h)(2) ......................................... Yes.

63.7(h)(3) ......................................... Yes ...................... Yes, except site-specific test plans shall not be required, and where § 63.7(g)(3) 

specifies submittal by the date the site-specific test plan is due, the date shall be 

90 days prior to the Notification of Compliance Status report in § 63.655(f). 

63.7(h)(4)(i) ...................................... Yes.

63.7(h)(4)(ii) ..................................... No ....................... Site-specific test plans are not required in subpart CC. 

63.7(h)(4)(iii) and (iv) ....................... Yes.

63.7(h)(5) ......................................... Yes.

63.8(a) .............................................. Yes ...................... Except § 63.8(a)(3), which is reserved. 

63.8(b) .............................................. Yes.

63.8(c)(1) .......................................... Yes.

63.8(c)(2) .......................................... Yes.

63.8(c)(3) .......................................... Yes ...................... Except that verification of operational status shall, at a minimum, include completion 

of the manufacturer’s written specifications or recommendations for installation, operation, and calibration of the system or other written procedures that provide adequate assurance that the equipment would monitor accurately. 

63.8(c)(4) .......................................... Yes ...................... Except Subpart CC specifies the monitoring cycle frequency specified in 

§ 63.8(c)(4)(ii) is ‘‘once every hour rather’’ than ‘‘for each successive 15-minute period.’’ 

63.8(c)(5)–63.8(c)(8) ........................ No.


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 55691 

TABLE 6—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART CC a—Continued 

Reference Applies to subpart 

CC Comment 

63.8(d) .............................................. No.

63.8(e) .............................................. No ....................... Subpart CC does not require performance evaluations; however, this shall not abrogate the Administrator’s authority to require performance evaluation under section 

114 of the Clean Air Act. 

63.8(f)(1) .......................................... Yes.

63.8(f)(2) .......................................... Yes.

63.8(f)(3) .......................................... Yes.

63.8(f)(4)(i) ....................................... No ....................... Timeframe for submitting request is specified in § 63.655(h)(5)(i) of subpart CC. 

63.8(f)(4)(ii) ...................................... Yes.

63.8(f)(4)(iii) ...................................... No ....................... Timeframe for submitting request is specified in § 63.655(h)(5)(i) of subpart CC. 

63.8(f)(5) .......................................... Yes.

63.8(f)(6) .......................................... No ....................... Subpart CC does not require continuous emission monitors. 

63.8(g) .............................................. No ....................... Subpart CC specifies data reduction procedures in § 63.655(i)(3). 

63.9(a) .............................................. Yes ...................... Except that the owner or operator does not need to send a copy of each notification 

submitted to the Regional Office of the EPA as stated in § 63.9(a)(4)(ii). 

63.9(b)(1) ......................................... Yes ...................... Except the notification of compliance status report specified in § 63.655(f) of subpart 

CC may also serve as the initial compliance notification required in § 63.9(b)(1)(iii). 

63.9(b)(2) ......................................... No ....................... A separate Initial Notification report is not required under subpart CC. 

63.9(b)(3) ......................................... No ....................... Reserved. 

63.9(b)(4) ......................................... Yes ...................... Except for subparagraphs § 63.9(b)(4)(ii) through (iv), which are reserved. 

63.9(b)(5) ......................................... Yes.

63.9(c) .............................................. Yes.

63.9(d) .............................................. Yes.

63.9(e) .............................................. No ....................... Subpart CC requires notification of performance test at least 30 days (rather than 60 

days) prior to the performance test and does not require a site-specific test plan. 

63.9(f) ............................................... No ....................... Subpart CC does not require advanced notification of visible emissions test. 

63.9(g) .............................................. No.

63.9(h) .............................................. No ....................... Subpart CC § 63.655(f) specifies Notification of Compliance Status report requirements. 

63.9(i) ............................................... Yes.

63.9(j) ............................................... No.

63.10(a) ............................................ Yes.

63.10(b)(1) ....................................... No ....................... § 63.644(d) of subpart CC specifies record retention requirements. 

63.10(b)(2)(i) .................................... Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(ii) ................................... Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(iii) ................................... No.

63.10(b)(2)(iv) .................................. Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(v) ................................... Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(vi) .................................. Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(vii) .................................. No.

63.10(b)(2)(viii) ................................. Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(ix) .................................. Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(x) ................................... Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(xi) .................................. No.

63.10(b)(2)(xii) .................................. Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ................................. No.

63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ................................. Yes.

63.10(b)(3) ....................................... No.

63.10(c)(1)–63.10(c)(6) .................... No.

63.10(c)(7) and 63.10(c)(8) .............. Yes.

63.10(c)(9)–63.10(c)(15) .................. No.

63.10(d)(1) ....................................... Yes.

63.10(d)(2) ....................................... No ....................... § 63.655(f) of subpart CC specifies performance test reporting. 

63.10(d)(3) ....................................... No ....................... Results of visible emissions test are included in Compliance Status Report as specified in § 63.655(f). 

63.10(d)(4) ....................................... Yes.

63.10(d)(5)(i) .................................... Yesb .................... Except that reports required by § 63.10(d)(5)(i) may be submitted at the same time as 

periodic reports specified in § 63.655(g) of subpart CC. 

63.10(d)(5)(ii) ................................... Yes ...................... Except that actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction that are not consistent with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and that cause the source 

to exceed any applicable emission limitation do not need to be reported within 2 

and 7 days of commencing and completing the action, respectively, but must be included in the next periodic report. 

63.10(e) ............................................ No.

63.10(f) ............................................. Yes.

63.11–63.16 ..................................... Yes.

aWherever subpart A specifies ‘‘postmark’’ dates, submittals may be sent by methods other than the U.S. Mail (e.g., by fax or courier). Submittals shall be sent by the specified dates, but a postmark is not required. bThe plan, and any records or reports of startup, shutdown, and malfunction do not apply to Group 2 emission points that are not part of an 

emissions averaging group. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
55692 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 7—FRACTION MEASURED (FM), FRACTION EMITTED (FE), AND FRACTION REMOVED (FR) FOR HAP COMPOUNDS IN

WASTEWATER STREAMS

Chemical name CAS No.a Fm Fe Fr 

Benzene ........................................................................................................... 71432 1.00 0.80 0.99 

Biphenyl ........................................................................................................... 92524 0.86 0.45 0.99 

Butadiene (1,3) ................................................................................................ 106990 1.00 0.98 0.99 

Carbon disulfide ............................................................................................... 75150 1.00 0.92 0.99 

Cumene ........................................................................................................... 98828 1.00 0.88 0.99 

Dichloroethane (1,2-) (Ethylene dichloride) ..................................................... 107062 1.00 0.64 0.99 

Ethylbenzene ................................................................................................... 100414 1.00 0.83 0.99 

Hexane ............................................................................................................. 110543 1.00 1.00 0.99 

Methanol .......................................................................................................... 67561 0.85 0.17 0.31 

Methyl isobutyl ketone (hexone) ...................................................................... 108101 0.98 0.53 0.99 

Methyl tert butyl ether ...................................................................................... 1634044 1.00 0.57 0.99 

Naphthalene ..................................................................................................... 91203 0.99 0.51 0.99 

Trimethylpentane (2,2,4) .................................................................................. 540841 1.00 1.00 0.99

xylene (m-) ....................................................................................................... 108383 1.00 0.82 0.99 

xylene (o-) ........................................................................................................ 95476 1.00 0.79 0.99 

xylene (p-) ........................................................................................................ 106423 1.00 0.82 0.99 

a CAS numbers refer to the Chemical Abstracts Service registry number assigned to specific compounds, isomers, or mixtures of compounds. 

* * * * * Table 10—Miscellaneous Process 

Vents—Monitoring, Recordkeeping, 

and Reporting Requirements for 

Complying With 98 Weight-Percent 

Reduction of Total Organic HAP 

Emissions or a Limit of 20 Parts per 

Million by Volume 

* * * * * 

dNCS = Notification of Compliance Status 

Report described in § 63.655. 

* * * * * fWhen a period of excess emission is 

caused by insufficient monitoring data, as 

described in § 63.655(g)(6)(i)(C) or (D), the 

duration of the period when monitoring data 

were not collected shall be included in the 

Periodic Report. gPR = Periodic Reports described in 

§ 63.655(g). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–25454 Filed 10–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3