Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries; National Uniform Emission Standards for Heat Exchange Systems
Posted Date: 2012-01-06T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 960-979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31530]

[[Page 959]]

Vol. 77

Friday,

No. 4

January 6, 2012

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Parts 9, 63 and 65

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum 
Refineries; National Uniform Emission Standards for Heat Exchange 
Systems; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 960]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 63 and 65

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0002; FRL-
9502-9]
RIN 2060-AP84

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From 
Petroleum Refineries; National Uniform Emission Standards for Heat 
Exchange Systems

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes amendments to the heat exchange system 
requirements of the national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants (NESHAP) for petroleum refineries in response to a petition 
for reconsideration filed by the American Petroleum Institute on the 
maximum achievable control technology standards we promulgated on 
October 28, 2009. We also are creating national uniform standards for 
heat exchange systems, largely based on the heat exchange system 
provisions that we adopted for petroleum refineries, and accompanying 
general provisions. We are proposing to revise the existing Petroleum 
Refinery NESHAP to cross-reference the uniform standard to allow an 
alternative option for complying with the standards for heat exchange 
systems. The proposed uniform standards would allow refiners to reduce 
monitoring frequency and burden by meeting a lower leak definition. If 
finalized, these national uniform standards would also be referenced, 
as appropriate, as we revise in the future NESHAP or new source 
performance standards for individual source categories that have heat 
exchange systems. Establishing a uniform standard for heat exchange 
systems is consistent with the objectives of Executive Order 13563, 
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, issued on January 18, 2011. 
We are also proposing other clarifications and technical corrections to 
the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP.

DATES: Comments. Written comments must be received on or before March 
6, 2012.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA by January 23, 2012 
requesting to speak at a public hearing, a public hearing will be held 
on February 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: All technical comments pertaining to the petroleum refinery 
amendments (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) should be marked ``Attention 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146.'' All technical comments pertaining 
to the Heat Exchange System Uniform Standards (40 CFR part 65, subpart 
L) should be marked ``Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0002.'' 
Comments regarding the proposed Uniform Standards General Provisions 
(40 CFR part 65, subpart H) or comments that are applicable to the 
uniform standards approach, such as general policy or legal comments, 
should be marked ``Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870.'' 
Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate Docket ID No., by 
one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (email) to 
a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146; 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0002; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870 (as appropriate).
     Fax: Fax your comments to: (202) 566-9744, Attention 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146; EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0002; or EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0870 (as appropriate).
     Mail: Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146; EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0002; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870 
(as appropriate). Please include a total of two copies. We request that 
a separate copy also be sent to the contact person identified below 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments 
to: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146; 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0002; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870 (as appropriate). Such 
deliveries are accepted only during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information. Please include a total of two copies.
    Instructions: All submissions must include agency name and docket 
number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. 
Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0002, or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870 (as appropriate). The EPA's policy 
is that all comments received will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential 
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or 
email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous 
access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an 
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk 
or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should 
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption and be free 
of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the dockets are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 
Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading 
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and 
Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Brenda Shine, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina

[[Page 961]]

27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3608; fax number: (919) 541-0246; 
email address: shine.brenda@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information
    A. General Background
    B. What is the statutory authority and regulatory background for 
this proposal?
    C. What source category is affected by this action?
    D. What is the EPA's response to petitions for reconsideration 
on Refinery MACT 1 (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC)?
III. Summary of the Proposed Standards and Amendments
    A. What amendments are we proposing for Refinery MACT 1 (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart CC)?
    B. What requirements for heat exchange systems are we proposing 
to include in 40 CFR part 65, subpart L?
    C. What general provisions for uniform standards are we 
proposing to include in 40 CFR part 65, subpart H?
IV. Rationale for Proposed Heat Exchange System Uniform Standards 
and Petroleum Refinery Amendments
    A. What is the rationale for the amendments to the heat exchange 
system requirements and the amendments to Refinery MACT 1?
    B. What is the rationale for the proposed uniform standards?
    C. What is the rationale for the proposed general provisions to 
the uniform standards?
V. Summary of Impacts
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated category and entities potentially affected by this 
proposed action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
            Category             NAICS \1\ code          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................          324110  Petroleum refineries
                                                  located at a major
                                                  source that are
                                                  subject to 40 CFR part
                                                  63, subpart CC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be potentially affected 
by this action. To determine whether your petroleum refinery would be 
regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the 
applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.640 of subpart CC (National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum 
Refineries). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
this action to a particular entity, contact either the air permit 
authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative, as listed 
in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).
    The provisions of the proposed uniform standards would apply 
initially only to the facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC 
(petroleum refineries), which are the subject of this rulemaking. 
However, we expect in future rulemaking actions to propose that new 
source performance standards (NSPS) and NESHAP for other source 
categories will also reference and require compliance with uniform 
standards, as appropriate. Examples of categories and entities 
potentially affected in the future by the proposed uniform standards 
for heat exchange systems include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
            Category             NAICS \1\ code          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................             325  Manufacturing
                                                  industries,
                                                  particularly
                                                  petrochemical,
                                                  chemical, polymers,
                                                  plastics and specialty
                                                  chemicals
                                                  manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities the EPA anticipates are likely to 
be potentially affected by this action through a future, separate 
rulemaking action. The entities listed in the above table are not 
affected by this action unless and until the EPA proposes in a separate 
notice to apply the uniform standards for heat exchange systems to a 
specific source category. The list of categories and entities 
potentially affected by this proposed action in the future is provided 
solely to inform owners and operators of facilities in those categories 
of the potential for future rulemaking and to solicit comments from 
these entities at this time. If, in a future rulemaking, the EPA 
proposes to apply these uniform standards to a particular source 
category, you would have another opportunity to comment on the specific 
application to your industry. Because we feel that establishing uniform 
standards for types of equipment found in a variety of industries will 
be efficient for facilities, state, local and tribal governments and 
the public, we seek broad input at this time. In the future, you would 
determine whether your facility, company, business or organization 
would be regulated by a proposed action by examining the applicability 
criteria in the referencing subpart. If you have any questions 
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, 
consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA 
regional representative, as listed in the referencing subpart.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver 
information as

[[Page 962]]

CBI only to the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA Mailroom 
(C404-02), Attn: Mr. Roberto Morales, Document Control Officer, 109 
T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146; EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0002; or EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0870 (as appropriate). Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM 
as CBI, and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. Information so marked will 
not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 
CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that 
includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does 
not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 
inclusion in the public docket.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the World Wide Web through 
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of 
this proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance 
page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
    The EPA has created a redline document comparing the existing 
regulatory text of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC and the proposed 
amendments to aid the public's ability to comment on the regulatory 
text. This document has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146).

D. When would a public hearing occur?

    If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing 
concerning the proposed amendments by January 23, 2012, we will hold a 
public hearing on February 6, 2012. If you are interested in attending 
the public hearing, contact Brenda Shine at (919) 541-3608 to verify 
that a hearing will be held. If a public hearing is held, it will be 
held at 10 a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium, 
Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.

II. Background Information

A. General Background

    In this action, we are proposing as ``uniform standards'' control 
requirements for hydrocarbon emissions from heat exchange systems, 
including emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and hazardous 
air pollutants (HAP). The proposed uniform standards reflect the EPA's 
regulatory experience from previous NESHAP and NSPS rulemakings 
involving similar kinds of sources and emission points, and they 
incorporate our review of the most current technology and emission 
reduction practices, as detailed in section IV.B of this preamble. 
These proposed uniform standards would be set forth in a newly created 
subpart L to 40 CFR part 65 and would then be referenced, as 
appropriate, from NSPS or NESHAP for individual source categories. The 
uniform standards would not apply to a source category addressed in an 
NSPS or NESHAP until the EPA completes a notice-and-comment rulemaking 
to make it apply to that source category. Thus, if this rulemaking is 
finalized, the uniform standard would apply, at that time only, to 
petroleum refineries under 40 CFR Part 63, subpart CC. We anticipate 
undertaking additional rulemakings in the future to propose that 
subpart L apply to other NSPS and NESHAP. This action is consistent 
with the EPA's interest in promoting efficient use of public and 
private sector resources and in improving consistency, compliance and 
enforceability of NSPS and NESHAP standards, consistent with Executive 
Order 16563. Additional details about the purpose and benefits of 
proposing uniform standards are provided in section IV.B of this 
preamble.
    As stated above, in this action we are also proposing to amend 40 
CFR part 63, subpart CC to remove the detailed requirements and, 
instead, reference these requirements as they would be included in the 
newly created 40 CFR part 65, subpart L. Finally, we are proposing 
clarifications to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. The statutory authority 
for the portion of this proposal concerning the refinery MACT standard 
is contained in section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), while the 
authority for the uniform standards is provided by sections 111 and 112 
of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7412, 7414, 7416 and 
7601).

B. What is the statutory authority and regulatory background for this 
proposal?

1. Amendments to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CC
    Section 112 of the CAA lists HAP and directs the EPA to develop 
rules to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. After the 
EPA has identified categories of sources emitting one or more of the 
HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) calls for us to 
promulgate NESHAP for those sources. For ``major sources'' that emit or 
have the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more 
per year, or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per 
year, these technology-based standards must reflect the maximum 
reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy 
requirements and non-air quality health and environmental impacts), and 
are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT) standards.
    For MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as floor requirements. 
See CAA section 112(d)(3). Specifically, for new sources, the MACT 
floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT 
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for 
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of 
existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing 
five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 
sources). In developing MACT, we must also consider control options 
that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more 
stringent than the floor based on the consideration of the cost of 
achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts and energy requirements.
    We published the final MACT standards for petroleum refineries (40 
CFR part 63, subpart CC) on August 18, 1995 (60 FR 43620). These 
standards are commonly referred to as the ``Refinery MACT 1'' standards 
because certain process vents were excluded from this source category 
and subsequently regulated under a second MACT standard specific to 
these petroleum refinery process vents (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU, 
referred to as ``Refinery MACT 2''). We published final MACT standards 
for heat exchange systems at petroleum refineries in amendments to 
Refinery MACT 1 on October 28, 2009

[[Page 963]]

(74 FR 55670). This action proposes amendments to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart CC for heat exchange systems at petroleum refineries, and does 
not amend 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU.
2. Uniform Standards
    This action proposes uniform standards for heat exchange systems 
(40 CFR part 65, subpart L). We are proposing to establish the uniform 
standards under 40 CFR part 65 and anticipate, through future notice-
and-comment rulemaking, to cross-reference subpart L from source 
category emission standards within at least two different parts of 
title 40 of the CFR, parts 60 and 63, which establish NSPS and MACT 
standards according to CAA sections 111 and 112, respectively.
    Section 111 of the CAA requires that NSPS reflect the application 
of the best system of emission reductions that (taking into 
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reductions, any non-
air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) 
the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. This 
level of control is commonly referred to as best demonstrated 
technology (BDT). Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to 
periodically review, and, as appropriate, revise the standards of 
performance to reflect improvements in methods for reducing emissions.
    Once the EPA has established MACT standards for source categories 
under CAA section 112(d), as described in section II.A.1 of this 
preamble, the EPA is required to review these technology-based 
standards and to revise them ``as necessary (taking into account 
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no 
less frequently than every 8 years, under CAA section 112(d)(6).
    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards 
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of 
generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT) 
by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' 
Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate report on the 
legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which 
describes GACT as:

    * * * methods, practices, and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.

Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and 
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important 
when developing regulations for source categories that may have many 
small businesses.
    Uniform standards would be referenced, as appropriate, by future 
NESHAP for major or area source categories in new proposed 40 CFR part 
63 subparts or revisions to existing individual subparts in 40 CFR part 
61 and 40 CFR part 63. Additionally, we expect to promulgate or revise 
NSPS in individual subparts in 40 CFR part 60 in the future, which 
would reference, as appropriate, promulgated uniform standards. The 
rationale for each determination of whether the uniform standards in 
proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart L are consistent with the applicable 
statutory requirements for which we were undertaking rulemaking action 
would be presented in that rulemaking for the individual source 
category. At that time, the public would be provided with an 
opportunity to comment on whether the specific requirements of the 
uniform standards should apply, as promulgated, or should be revised 
for purposes of the specific source category at issue in that 
rulemaking action. For example, if the uniform standards for heat 
exchange systems are finalized, then, when reviewing NSPS for a 
specific source category that includes heat exchange systems, we would 
consider whether the uniform standards include the current best 
demonstrated technology for heat exchange systems in that source 
category and the public would be provided an opportunity to comment on 
our proposed conclusion that either the uniform standards or 
alternative standards are the best demonstrated technology. 
Additionally, we would evaluate and take comment on whether the 
recordkeeping, reporting and other requirements were appropriate. If we 
take final action determining for that source category that the uniform 
standard is the best demonstrated technology, we would amend the NSPS 
to reference the uniform standards rather than duplicating the 
requirements in the section of the CFR addressing the NSPS for that 
source category.

C. What source category is affected by this action?

    This action directly affects only the petroleum refineries source 
category. Petroleum refineries are facilities engaged in refining and 
producing products made from crude oil or unfinished petroleum 
derivatives. Based on the Energy Information Administration's Refinery 
Capacity Report 2009, there are 152 operable petroleum refineries in 
the United States (U.S.) and the U.S. territories, all of which are 
expected to be major sources of HAP and VOC emissions. Petroleum 
refineries are located in 35 states, as well as Puerto Rico and the 
U.S. Virgin Islands. Texas, Louisiana and California are the states 
with the most petroleum refining capacity (with 27 percent, 18 percent 
and 11 percent of U.S. capacity, respectively).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Energy Information Administration, Refinery Capacity Data, 
From Form EIA-820, Annual Refinery Report, January, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action specifically affects heat exchange systems at petroleum 
refineries. Heat exchange systems include closed-loop recirculation 
systems with cooling towers and once-through systems that receive non-
contact cooling water from a heat exchanger for the purposes of cooling 
the water prior to returning the water to the heat exchanger or 
discharging the water to another process unit, waste management unit, 
or to a receiving water body. Cooling towers typically at refineries 
and chemical plants employ mechanical draft cooling towers that use 
large fans to force air through or across the cooling water to cool the 
water. Heat exchangers occasionally develop leaks which result in 
process fluids entering the cooling water. The hydrocarbons (which may 
include VOC and air toxics) in these process fluids are then emitted to 
the atmosphere due to stripping. Cooling tower emissions resulting from 
the addition of chemicals to the cooling water to prevent fouling or to 
decontaminate the water are not covered by this standard, but are 
instead covered under the Industrial Process Cooling Tower NESHAP (40 
CFR part 63, subpart Q).
    This action may affect other source categories with heat exchange 
systems if the EPA takes action in the future to propose to apply the 
uniform standards for heat exchange systems to one or more other source 
categories. However, EPA will determine applicability of the uniform 
standards for heat exchange systems in another source category through 
notice-and-comment rulemaking. In such a rulemaking, we will explain 
that all or a portion of subpart L is consistent with the CAA 
requirements at issue in such rulemaking. For example, in the context 
of an NSPS rulemaking, we could determine that subpart L is BDT for the 
source category at issue or, alternatively, we could determine that 
different emission standards should apply, but that recordkeeping, 
reporting and other requirements of subpart L are appropriate. As 
another example, for heat exchange systems in a source

[[Page 964]]

category already subject to regulation (e.g., facilities subject to 
National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From 
the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (``HON,'' 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart F)), a review of the existing requirements may result 
in a determination that the subpart L requirements constitute a 
development in processes, practices or control technologies since the 
original standard was issued. Before amending any specific standard to 
reference 40 CFR part 65, subpart L, we would evaluate the 
appropriateness of the subpart L requirements for the source category 
in light of the specific statutory obligation(s) at issue, and, if the 
subpart L requirements are appropriate, cross-reference those 
standards. As previously noted, any such evaluation would take place 
through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

D. What is the EPA's response to petitions for reconsideration on 
Refinery MACT 1 (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC)?

    As mentioned previously in this preamble, we published final MACT 
standards for heat exchange systems at petroleum refineries in 
amendments to Refinery MACT 1 on October 28, 2009 (74 FR 55670). On 
December 23, 2009, the American Petroleum Institute (API) requested an 
administrative reconsideration under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) of 
certain provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC that they had 
identified in an April 7, 2009, letter to the EPA. Specifically, API 
requested that the EPA reconsider: (1) The compliance schedule and 
applicability provisions in 40 CFR 63.640(h); (2) the definition of 
``heat exchange system'' in 40 CFR 63.641 as it relates to once-through 
heat exchange systems and refinery process units; (3) the monitoring 
procedures for once-through heat exchange systems in 40 CFR 63.654(c); 
(4) the determination of the cooling water flow rate in 40 CFR 
63.654(g); (5) the overlap provisions for storage vessels in 40 CFR 
63.640(n); (6) the deck fitting control requirements for storage vessel 
internal floating roofs in 40 CFR 63.646; (7) reports required for 
storage vessels also subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y; (8) the 
definition of ``heat exchange system'' in 40 CFR 63.641 as it relates 
to cooling towers; (9) the monitoring procedures for once-through heat 
exchange systems in 40 CFR 63.654(e); and (10) the application of the 
rule to heat exchanger systems which use salt water. In addition, API 
identified eight incorrect references and other typographical errors 
that they requested the EPA correct.
    In this action, the EPA is granting reconsideration on petitioner's 
Issues Nos. 2, 3 and 4. In addition, with regard to petitioner's Issue 
No. 1, we are granting reconsideration on the use of the promulgation 
date to describe the applicability for new sources in 40 CFR 
63.640(h)(1). Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA provides that the EPA 
shall convene a proceeding to reconsider a rule if a person raising an 
objection can demonstrate: (1) That it was impracticable to raise the 
objection during the comment period, or that the grounds for such 
objection arose after the comment period, but within the time specified 
for judicial review (i.e., within 60 days after publication of the 
final rulemaking notice in the Federal Register), and (2) that the 
objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. We are 
granting reconsideration on these specific issues because the grounds 
for petitioner's objections arose after the public comment period (but 
within the time specified for judicial review) and the objections are 
of central relevance to the outcome of the final rule pursuant to CAA 
section 307(d)(7)(B).
    The EPA is denying API's request for reconsideration on 
petitioner's Issue Nos. 5, 6 and 7 identified in the previous 
paragraph, and on the incorrect references and other typographical 
errors that were identified in sections describing specific 
requirements for storage vessels. The regulatory text that API reviewed 
when developing their April 7, 2009, letter was included in a final 
rule that was signed, but never published in the Federal Register. On 
October 28, 2009, the EPA proposed to withdraw the portions of that 
signed rule that includes the regulatory text identified in Issue Nos. 
5, 6 and 7 and that included the incorrect references and typographical 
errors related to storage vessels (see 74 FR 55505). The agency 
recently published a final action on the proposed withdrawal of the 
amendments to the Refinery MACT 1 rule storage vessel requirements (see 
76 FR 42052, July 18, 2011). Therefore, reconsideration of these 
provisions is not necessary.
    The EPA is also denying API's request for reconsideration of 
certain language that we finalized as proposed, including: (1) The 
definition of ``heat exchange system'' as it relates to cooling towers 
(Issue No. 8 above), and (2) the ability to perform additional 
monitoring to verify that a leak is in a heat exchanger in HAP service 
at 40 CFR 63.654(e) (Issue No. 9 above). These issues could have been 
raised during the public comment period for the rule. API did not 
submit comments on this issue during the comment period on the 
proposal, nor did API's petition show why these issues could not have 
been presented during the comment period, either because it was 
impracticable to raise the issue during that time, or because the 
grounds for the issue arose after the comment period. Nevertheless, we 
did attempt to address some of these issues where we felt it was 
important to do so.
    Similarly, the EPA is denying the request for reconsideration of 
the application of the rule to heat exchanger systems which use salt 
water (Issue No. 10 above). The proposed rule language required 
monitoring for all heat exchange systems in HAP service. API's petition 
for reconsideration did not explain why suggestions to limit the 
applicability of the rule to certain types of heat exchange systems 
were not and could not have been raised during the public comment 
period.
    However, we note that, while we are not granting reconsideration on 
these issues, the proposed uniform standards in 40 CFR part 65, subpart 
L and our proposed amendments to the Refinery MACT 1, as described 
below, do attempt to clarify some of these issues and concerns where it 
is appropriate to do so.
    Finally, the EPA is not granting reconsideration on the 
miscellaneous incorrect references and other typographical errors that 
API identified in their petition. We note that four of the incorrect 
references and other typographical errors identified by API were 
corrected in a corrections notice published on June 30, 2010 (75 FR 
37730). Although we are not granting reconsideration on the remaining 
incorrect references and typographical errors identified by API, 
because these corrections are not issues of central relevance to the 
outcome of the final rule, we are, nevertheless, proposing to correct 
those errors in this notice where appropriate.

III. Summary of the Proposed Standards and Amendments

A. What amendments are we proposing for Refinery MACT 1 (40 CFR part 
63, subpart CC)?

1. Structural Changes
    We are proposing to remove from Refinery MACT 1 the general 
monitoring, delay of repair, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 
that we are proposing to add to 40 CFR part 65, subpart L, as described 
in section III.B of this preamble. In their place, we would include in 
40 CFR 63.654 and 40 CFR

[[Page 965]]

63.655 of Refinery MACT 1 cross-references to the requirements as 
specified in subpart L. Thus, this change would maintain these 
requirements for heat exchange systems at petroleum refineries, but the 
specifics of the requirements would be included in a different subpart. 
We would retain in 40 CFR 63.654 the requirements for heat exchange 
systems that are specific to the petroleum refining industry. 
Specifically, Refinery MACT 1 would continue to specify the monitoring 
frequency and the leak action level for existing and new sources. 
Refinery MACT would also continue to specify the delay of repair action 
level. These action levels would continue to be specified in 40 CFR 
63.654 because they are specific levels established in our final rule 
for Refinery MACT 1 sources. 74 FR 55669.
    We are proposing to restructure 40 CFR 63.640(h)(1) to remove the 
reserved paragraphs and renumber the remaining paragraphs. These 
paragraphs are not directly referenced anywhere else in Refinery MACT 
1, so we are not proposing any other amendments related to this 
restructuring. We are also proposing to reword newly renumbered 40 CFR 
63.640(h)(1)(i) and (ii) to clarify that the compliance and 
applicability dates in those paragraphs refer to the new source at 
which a heat exchange system is located. These proposed changes address 
the relevant portions of API's reconsideration Issue No. 1 to clearly 
reflect our intent regarding the compliance schedule and, specifically, 
the applicability of new source requirements for heat exchange systems. 
The previously promulgated language could have been interpreted to mean 
that heat exchange systems themselves could be considered new sources, 
which is inconsistent with the description of an affected source at 40 
CFR 63.640(c), that includes all emission points located at a single 
plant site.
    We are proposing to clarify the applicability date in 40 CFR 
63.640(h)(1)(ii), based on CAA section 112(a)(4), which defines ``new 
source'' as a source that commences construction or reconstruction 
``after the Administrator first proposes regulations under [section 
112] establishing an emission standard applicable to such source.'' 
Because the referenced provision applies to new sources, we are 
proposing to correct the date to be the date we first proposed 
regulations establishing emissions standards, rather than the 
compliance date for such standards. These changes also address 
reconsideration issue No. 1 to clearly and properly reflect our intent 
with regard to the compliance schedule and applicability provisions.
    Finally, we are proposing to add clarity to 40 CFR 63.640(a). 
Section 63.640(a) states that ``[t]his subpart applies to petroleum 
refining process units and to related emission points specified in 
paragraphs (c)(5) through (8) of this section * * *'' However, upon 
review, we have determined that there is not a clear distinction 
between petroleum refining process units and related emission points. 
Specifically, paragraph (c)(1) through (4) could also be considered 
``related emission points.'' Therefore, we are proposing to revise 40 
CFR 63.640(a) to read: ``This subpart applies to petroleum refining 
process units and to related emission points specified in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (8) of this section * * *'' As amended, this statement 
more clearly reflects that Refinery MACT 1 addresses all emissions 
points described in paragraphs (c)(1) though (8).
    We are also proposing to remove the definitions of ``cooling tower 
return line'' and ``heat exchange exit line'' from the Refinery MACT 1 
regulations (40 CFR 63.641). All references to these terms would appear 
in 40 CFR part 65, subpart L, so the definitions are no longer needed 
in Refinery MACT 1. We note that the phrase ``in regulated material 
service'' is defined in Refinery MACT 1 as ``in organic HAP service.'' 
The proposed uniform standard in subpart L is designed so that both 
NESHAP and NSPS can point to it. As such, the proposed uniform standard 
includes a definition of ``in regulated material service.'' However, 
since the Refinery MACT 1 uses the term, ``in organic HAP service,'' to 
determine whether certain equipment is subject to the MACT standards, 
we are retaining that term for refineries and not relying on the more 
general term in the proposed uniform standard. The existing Refinery 
MACT 1 definition would continue to apply to heat exchange systems at 
Refinery MACT 1 sources for determining whether a heat exchange system 
is in regulated material service.
2. Substantive Revisions
    Refinery MACT 1 would continue to specify that, when monthly 
monitoring is conducted, the leak action level for existing sources is 
6.2 parts per million by volume (ppmv) total strippable hydrocarbons 
(as methane) in the stripping gas collected via the Texas Commission on 
Environmental Quality's (TCEQ) Modified El Paso Method, Revision Number 
One, dated January 2003,\2\ and the leak action level for new sources 
is 3.1 ppmv total strippable hydrocarbons (as methane) collected via 
the Modified El Paso Method. We are also proposing to include 
alternative leak action levels for direct water sampling. For existing 
sources, the proposed leak action level is 80 parts per billion by 
weight (ppbw) of total strippable hydrocarbons in the cooling water 
collected and analyzed according to either a combination SW-846 Methods 
5030B and 8260C \3\ or ASTM Method D5790-95 \4\ and for new sources, 
the proposed leak action level is 40 ppbw of total strippable 
hydrocarbons in the cooling water collected and analyzed according to 
SW-846 Methods 5030B and 8260C or ASTM Method D5790-95. The delay of 
repair action level would be either 62 ppmv total strippable 
hydrocarbons (as methane) collected via the Modified El Paso Method, as 
currently required, or an alternative of 800 ppbw of total strippable 
hydrocarbons in the cooling water collected and analyzed according to 
SW-846 Methods 5030B and 8260C or ASTM Method D5790-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for 
Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water 
Sources, Revision Number One, dated January 2003, Sampling 
Procedures Manual, Appendix P: Cooling Tower Monitoring, prepared by 
TCEQ, January 31, 2003 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  
65.265).
    \3\ SW-846 Method 5030B, Purge-and-Trap for Aqueous Samples, and 
SW-846 Method 8260C, Aromatic and Halogenated Volatiles by Gas 
Chromatography Using Photoionization and/or Electrolytic 
Conductivity Detectors, dated December 1996 (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  65.265).
    \4\ ASTM Method D5790-95, Standard Test Method for Measurement 
of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas 
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, reapproved 2006, incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  65.265).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on an expanded technology review and impacts analysis we 
performed to determine whether to apply this proposed uniform standard 
to heat exchange systems at petroleum refineries, we have determined 
that quarterly monitoring using a lower leak definition would achieve 
equivalent emissions reductions (see technical memorandum, Revised 
Impacts for Heat Exchange Systems at Petroleum Refineries, in Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146). Therefore, we are proposing to allow 
affected facilities an alternative compliance option: To monitor 
quarterly, using a leak action level of either 3.1 ppmv total 
strippable hydrocarbons (as methane) in the stripping gas collected via 
the Modified El Paso Method, or 40 ppbw of total strippable 
hydrocarbons in the cooling water collected and analyzed according to 
SW-846 Methods 5030B and 8260C or ASTM Method D5790-95. The owner

[[Page 966]]

or operator would select which alternative they will use to monitor 
each heat exchange system; different monitoring alternatives may be 
selected for different heat exchange systems at the facility.
    In Refinery MACT 1, we finalized a definition of ``heat exchange 
system'' as follows, ``a device or series of devices used to transfer 
heat from process fluids to water without intentional direct contact of 
the process fluid with the water (i.e., non-contact heat exchanger) and 
to transport and/or cool the water in a closed-loop recirculation 
system (cooling tower system) or a once-through system (e.g., river or 
pond water). For closed-loop recirculation systems, the heat exchange 
system consists of a cooling tower, all heat exchangers that are 
serviced by that cooling tower, and all water lines to and from the 
heat exchanger(s). For once through systems, the heat exchange system 
consists of one or more heat exchangers servicing an individual process 
unit and all water lines to and from the heat exchanger(s). Intentional 
direct contact with process fluids results in the formation of a 
wastewater.'' This definition covers both heat exchange systems that 
recirculate the cooling water within the plant, relying on a cooling 
tower to cool the water after it has passes through the process areas, 
as well as once-through systems that bring in cooling water from a 
water body and then return the water back to the water body after it 
has passed through the process. We are proposing to revise that 
definition of ``heat exchange system'' from what was finalized for 
Refinery MACT 1 and replace the word ``series'' with ``collection'' to 
avoid any confusion that heat exchangers must be arranged in a series 
configuration (as opposed to a parallel configuration). This edit was 
requested in the reconsideration petition (Issue No. 8) and, although 
we did not grant reconsideration on it specifically, we believe it is 
appropriate to clarify the definition to reflect our intent. The 
proposed definition in the uniform standard (40 CFR part 65, subpart L) 
includes this same definition.

B. What requirements for heat exchange systems are we proposing to 
include in 40 CFR part 65, subpart L?

    We are proposing to add to 40 CFR part 65 a new subpart L, which 
would include requirements for monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
for heat exchange systems subject to a facility-specific referencing 
subpart. These requirements are the same as the monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements issued as part of the 
revisions to the Refinery MACT 1 standard, which established the MACT 
floor for heat exchange systems at petroleum refineries (74 FR 55670, 
October 28, 2009). The preamble to the final rule and the preamble to 
the supplemental proposal (73 FR 66694, November 10, 2008) provide more 
detail on the basis for those requirements.
    We are proposing default leak action levels, delay of repair action 
levels and monitoring frequencies in the uniform standards that would 
apply if the referencing subpart does not specify these details. These 
default action levels and monitoring frequencies are based on our 
general technology review for heat exchange systems (see technical 
memorandum, Technology Review for Heat Exchange Systems, in Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0002) and represent a heat exchange system 
monitoring program that is expected to be cost effective in a wide 
variety of applications. The default leak action level is either 3.1 
ppmv total strippable hydrocarbons (as methane) in the stripping gas 
collected via the Modified El Paso Method, or 40 ppbw of total 
strippable hydrocarbons in the cooling water collected and analyzed 
according to SW-846 Methods 5030B and 8260C or ASTM Method D5790-95 and 
the monitoring frequency is quarterly. However, we anticipate that 
these action levels and the monitoring frequency may vary for heat 
exchanger systems in different source categories. In those cases, the 
action levels and monitoring frequencies would be defined in the 
appropriate referencing subpart.
    We are not proposing to specify a compliance timeline in 40 CFR 
part 65, subpart L because the compliance timeline may vary for 
different source categories. Instead, we expect that the compliance 
timeline would be specified in each source-specific subpart whenever 
that subpart is amended.
    We are proposing that owners and operators of heat exchange systems 
that are ``in regulated material service'' (as defined by either the 
referencing subpart, if it provides a definition of that term, or in 40 
CFR part 65, subpart L) at an affected source would be required to 
conduct sampling and analyses using the Modified El Paso Method, or SW-
846 Methods 5030B and 8260C or ASTM Method D5790-95.
    We are also including provisions specifying the frequency of 
sampling and analyses; however, a referencing subpart could specify 
alternative provisions for the frequency of sampling and analyses which 
would apply in place of those provisions in 40 CFR part 65, subpart L. 
For each NSPS or MACT rule that, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, 
we determine will cross-reference subpart L, this limit would apply 
unless an alternative limit is established in the cross-referencing 
subpart through that rulemaking process. The proposed standards under 
subpart L would require the repair of leaks in heat exchangers in 
regulated material service within 45 days of the sampling event in 
which the leak is detected, unless a delay in repair is allowed. Delay 
in repair of the leak would be allowed until the next shutdown if the 
repair of the leak requires the process unit served by the leaking heat 
exchanger to be shut down and if the total strippable hydrocarbon 
concentration is less than the delay of repair action level, which 
would be, as a default level, 62 ppmv total strippable hydrocarbons (as 
methane) collected via the Modified El Paso Method or 800 ppbw of total 
strippable hydrocarbons in the cooling water collected and analyzed 
according to SW-846 Methods 5030B and 8260C or ASTM Method D5790-95. 
Delay in repair of the leak would also be allowed for up to 120 days if 
the total strippable hydrocarbon concentration is less than the delay 
of repair action level, and if critical parts or personnel are not 
available. The owner or operator would be required to continue 
monitoring, at least monthly, and to repair the heat exchanger within 
30 days if sampling results show that the leak exceeds the delay of 
repair action level.
    We are proposing different sampling locations for heat exchange 
systems based on whether the system includes a cooling tower or is a 
once-through heat exchange system. We are granting reconsideration on 
these issues (Issue Nos. 2 and 3) identified by API. We are proposing 
to clarify these requirements in 40 CFR part 65, subpart L and we are 
proposing that 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC would cross-reference these 
provisions for heat exchange systems at refineries. For heat exchange 
systems that include a cooling tower (i.e., closed-loop recirculation 
systems), we are proposing that sampling would be conducted at the 
combined cooling tower inlet water location prior to exposure to the 
atmosphere or, alternatively, that sampling would be conducted in the 
return or ``exit'' lines (i.e., water lines returning the water from 
the heat exchangers to the cooling tower) from an individual heat 
exchanger or bank of heat exchangers. That is, if the cooling tower 
services multiple heat exchangers, the owner or operator could choose 
among several sampling locations: (1) Monitor only the heat exchangers 
``in regulated material

[[Page 967]]

service''; (2) monitor at branch points that combine several heat 
exchanger exit lines; or (3) monitor at the combined stream for the 
entire closed-loop recirculation system. If a leak is detected (i.e., 
the measured concentration exceeds the applicable leak action level) at 
an individual heat exchanger ``in regulated material service,'' that 
leak would need to be repaired (i.e., appropriate action taken to 
reduce the hydrocarbon concentration to less than the applicable leak 
action level). If a leak is detected at the combined cooling tower 
inlet, the owner or operator could either fix the leak or leaks so that 
the hydrocarbon concentration measured at the combined cooling tower 
inlet is less than the applicable leak action level or sample heat 
exchanger exit lines for each individual or combination of heat 
exchangers ``in regulated material service,'' as necessary, to document 
that the leak is not originating from any heat exchanger within the 
closed-loop recirculation systems that is ``in regulated material 
service.'' If a leak is detected in an individual heat exchanger ``in 
regulated material service'' during this process, that leak would need 
to be repaired. We are also proposing to clarify the regulatory text we 
are moving from 40 CFR 63.654(g)(4)(ii) of subpart CC to 40 CFR 
65.640(g)(4)(ii) of subpart L to indicate that the flow rate for 
calculation of emissions from heat exchanger leaks may be based on 
direct measurement, pump curves, heat balance calculations or other 
engineering methods (reconsideration Issue No. 4).
    We are proposing to define a once-through heat exchange system as a 
system that ``consists of one or more heat exchangers servicing an 
individual process unit and all water lines to and from the heat 
exchanger(s).'' This definition has not been substantively changed from 
the Refinery MACT 1 definition. We are not adopting the petitioner's 
suggested edits to say ``one or more individual process units.'' 
Rather, we are proposing that sampling for once-through heat exchange 
systems must be conducted in exit lines from individual heat 
exchangers, or a group of heat exchangers ``in regulated material 
service'' associated with a single process unit. In closed-loop 
recirculation heat exchange systems, the potential dilution of the leak 
by including cooling waters from other processes is minimized due to 
the physical limitations of the quantity of water that can be processed 
by a single cooling tower. If once-through heat exchange systems are 
not limited by definition to a single process unit, then a once-through 
heat exchange system could include all heat exchangers at the entire 
facility. The potential to aggregate all cooling water at a facility 
(as opposed to a single process unit) prior to sampling for a once-
through system would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the leak 
monitoring methods and would allow HAP or VOC leaks to remain 
undetected, based solely on the dilution effect from the vast quantity 
of water processed at the facility. We request comment on the proposed 
definition and sampling method for once-through heat exchange systems. 
Commenters are encouraged to provide additional information and 
suggestions for sampling alternatives that would allow flexibility, but 
would include a small enough number of individual heat exchangers to 
provide meaningful measurements in once-through systems.
    In addition, we are proposing to allow the owner or operator of a 
once-through heat exchange system to monitor both the inlet and outlet 
of an individual heat exchanger or group of heat exchangers associated 
with a single process unit and compare the difference between those two 
measurements to the leak action level to determine if a leak is 
detected. This provision was contained in 40 CFR 63.654(c)(1), but has 
been clarified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart L. The use of a 
differential leak is provided for once-through systems because the 
water supply for these systems (often river water or ocean water) may 
contain higher background concentrations of hydrocarbons than the 
purchased water that is used in closed-loop recirculation systems.
    We propose to define ``in regulated material service'' in 40 CFR 
part 65, subpart L and to include procedures for determining whether a 
heat exchanger is ``in regulated material service'' in 40 CFR 65.275 of 
the Uniform Standards General Provisions (40 CFR part 65, subpart H) 
(see section III.C of this preamble for more detail on the Uniform 
Standards General Provisions).
    All affected sources with a heat exchange system in regulated 
material service would be required to maintain records of: (1) All heat 
exchangers at the facility and which of those heat exchangers are in 
regulated material service subject to 40 CFR part 65, subpart L; (2) 
the cooling towers and once-through systems associated with heat 
exchangers in regulated material service; (3) all monitoring results; 
and (4) information documenting the reasons for any delays in repair of 
a leak. These requirements are the same as the requirements finalized 
for refinery heat exchange systems.
    As proposed, 40 CFR part 65, subpart L specifies a default 
monitoring frequency of quarterly. This default monitoring frequency is 
based on a general analysis of the costs of monitoring at various 
frequencies. The initial equipment costs associated with the Modified 
El Paso sampling method are about $14,000, but one stripping column can 
be used to monitor several heat exchange systems at the facility. For 
continuous monitoring, a stripping column and hydrocarbon analyzer 
would be required for each affected heat exchange system, which would 
increase the costs if more than one heat exchange system exists at a 
given facility. We note that the monitoring frequency is a minimum 
required frequency; an owner or operator conducting more frequent 
monitoring than required would still be in compliance with subpart L or 
the source-specific subpart that establishes an alternative monitoring 
frequency.

C. What general provisions for uniform standards are we proposing to 
include in 40 CFR part 65, subpart H?

    We are proposing to include general provisions in 40 CFR part 65, 
subpart H that would apply to all sources subject to uniform standards. 
We note that these general provisions are not intended to take the 
place of the general provisions provided in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 
for NESHAP and that are referenced in many MACT standards. Similarly, 
these general provisions are not intended to take the place of the 
general provisions provided in subpart A of 40 CFR part 60 for NSPS. 
The specific provisions we are proposing to include in 40 CFR part 65, 
subpart H are described below.
    Proposed 40 CFR 65.270 is a centralized section for incorporations 
by reference, such as test methods. This provision would be similar to 
provisions in other general provision subparts (e.g., 40 CFR 63.14). We 
anticipate that we would add methods to this section as we propose new 
uniform standards.
    Proposed 40 CFR 65.275 describes procedures for determining whether 
a source is ``in regulated material service.'' We anticipate some of 
the uniform standards, including 40 CFR part 65, subpart L, would 
include requirements for regulated sources ``in regulated material 
service.'' In many cases, referencing subparts would define the 
``regulated material'' and explain how to determine whether a source is 
``in regulated material service'' for the source category addressed by 
that referencing subpart. However, in the event that a referencing 
subpart does not provide an explanation of how to determine whether a 
source is ``in

[[Page 968]]

regulated material service,'' we are proposing procedures for making 
that determination under the proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart H. The 
proposed requirements are based on the procedures in 40 CFR 63.180(d), 
and are provided for clarification for the sources subject to the 
uniform standards.
    Proposed 40 CFR 65.280 contains requirements for determining 
compliance with periodic requirements. The proposed requirements 
specify that weekly, monthly and annually refer to the standard 
calendar periods and sources would have to complete periodic 
requirements within each standard calendar period with a minimum amount 
of time or ``reasonable interval'' between each event. We have also 
included a provision clarifying that the reasonable interval 
requirement would not prevent a source from conducting the periodic 
requirement more frequently. In other words, if a source is required to 
monitor quarterly, but elects to monitor monthly instead, it would 
still be considered in compliance with the requirement to monitor 
quarterly.
    Finally, proposed 40 CFR 65.295 includes definitions for terms that 
we expect will be used across multiple uniform standard subparts, so 
that those terms are defined consistently. In this action, we are 
proposing to define ``owner or operator,'' ``regulated material,'' and 
``regulated source.'' We intend to propose other definitions for 
inclusion in this section, as needed, when we propose requirements for 
other uniform standards.

IV. Rationale for Proposed Heat Exchange System Uniform Standards and 
Petroleum Refinery Amendments

A. What is the rationale for the amendments to the heat exchange system 
requirements and the amendments to Refinery MACT 1?

    When we developed the MACT requirements for heat exchange systems 
at petroleum refineries, we primarily evaluated permits in order to 
identify the MACT floor monitoring requirements for heat exchange 
systems at new and existing sources. We then developed impacts for the 
monitoring alternatives identified during the permit review process. In 
evaluating monitoring alternatives for the uniform standards, we 
developed a more detailed modeling approach to better understand the 
relative impacts of the monitoring frequency, leak action level, delay 
of repair threshold and other model variables. Through this analysis, 
we discovered that the leak action level is often more critical to 
achieving emission reductions than the monitoring frequency. The 
relative importance of the monitoring frequency versus leak action 
level depends on the baseline monitoring frequency and action level to 
which one is comparing results, but the results clearly indicate that 
more frequent monitoring at a high leak action level is not as 
effective at reducing emissions as less frequent monitoring at a low 
leak action level. Based on the generalized heat exchange system 
analysis (see technical memorandum, Technology Review for Heat Exchange 
Systems, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0002), quarterly monitoring 
at a leak action level of 40 ppbw in the cooling water (which is 
equivalent to 3.1 ppmv hydrocarbons as methane in the stripping gas) is 
as or more effective at reducing emissions as monthly monitoring at a 
leak action level of 80 ppbw in the cooling water (or 6.2 ppmv 
hydrocarbons as methane in the stripping gas) for individual heat 
exchange systems.
    We then evaluated these two monitoring options specifically for 
heat exchange systems located at petroleum refineries, and determined 
that these two monitoring options are expected to achieve equivalent 
emission reductions. That is, we determined that a quarterly monitoring 
program using a leak action level of 40 ppbw would achieve the same 
emission limitation achieved by a monthly monitoring program using a 
leak action level of 80 ppbw; therefore, we believe it is equivalent to 
the MACT floor for existing sources. Based on our analysis, quarterly 
monitoring at the lower leak action level would result in a net cost 
savings compared to monthly monitoring, so we anticipate that, if given 
the option, most refineries would elect to use the quarterly monitoring 
alternative.\5\ Therefore, we are proposing to revise the existing MACT 
standard to include, as an alternative for existing sources, quarterly 
monitoring with a leak action level of 40 ppbw. To ensure each 
monitoring program is implemented as intended, the refinery owner or 
operator would choose the monitoring program with which they would 
comply at all times for each heat exchange system and notify the 
Administrator of that choice. The refinery owner or operator would 
notify the Administrator if a change in monitoring alternative is 
desired, but all ``leaks'' identified prior to changing monitoring 
alternatives would be required to be repaired regardless of the change 
in leak definition for the newly elected alternative. Thus, the 
refinery owner or operator could not elect quarterly monitoring at 40 
ppbw, identify a leak of 60 ppbw and then change the monitoring 
frequency to monthly with an action level of 80 ppbw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ However, we know that several refineries in Texas are 
currently required to monitor monthly using the higher leak action 
level and may desire to keep their current monitoring program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to fulfilling the mandate in CAA section 112(d)(2) and 
(3) that sources be subject to requirements at least as stringent as 
the MACT floor, this revision is responsive to Executive Order 13563, 
``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' issued on January 18, 
2011, which directs each federal agency to ``periodically review its 
existing significant regulations to determine whether any such 
regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded or repealed so as 
to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less 
burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.'' As discussed 
previously, we have determined that quarterly monitoring using a lower 
leak action level of either 3.1 ppmv total strippable hydrocarbons (as 
methane) in the stripping gas collected via the Modified El Paso 
Method, or 40 ppbw of total strippable hydrocarbons in the cooling 
water collected and analyzed according to SW-846 Methods 5030B and 
8260C or ASTM Method D5790-95 would achieve equivalent emissions 
reductions as the monthly monitoring with a leak action level of 6.2 
ppmv total strippable hydrocarbons (as methane) that is currently in 
the Refinery MACT 1 rule for existing sources. This proposed 
alternative will increase flexibility for the regulated industry, and 
reduce the cost and administrative burden, while maintaining at least 
equivalent level of environmental and public health protection.
    In developing the uniform standards for heat exchange systems, we 
also considered more broadly the variety of heat exchange systems in 
use and whether the Modified El Paso Method should be the sole 
monitoring system identified in the uniform standard at this time. For 
some source categories, a limited number of compounds may be present in 
the process stream for which analytical methods are available that can 
detect these compounds at low concentrations. Additionally, for streams 
containing highly chlorinated organic compounds, these alternative 
methods may provide lower detection limits and better sensitivity than 
using the Modified El Paso Method (which uses a flame ionization 
detector). Our review indicated that the specific analytical method 
used was not critical

[[Page 969]]

to the emission limitations achieved, provided that the method could 
accurately quantify pollutant concentrations at levels far enough below 
the leak action level that the method could accurately indicate whether 
or not a leak exists. As such, we are proposing to include a direct 
water analysis method in the uniform standards. As previously stated, 
each referencing subpart could include different or alternative 
analytical methods if they are determined to be appropriate in the 
rulemaking on that referencing subpart.
    For petroleum refineries, we considered whether direct water 
sampling should be included as an alternative. Proponents of the 
Modified El Paso Method note that volatile compounds can be lost during 
the direct water sampling process, so that the Modified El Paso Method 
would be more accurate for samples that contain volatile compounds, 
such as those typically found at a petroleum refinery. However, in 
using direct water sampling, there are sampling methods for volatile or 
for highly reactive volatile compounds that, if followed, should 
minimize volatile loss during sampling and storage. Another potential 
issue with direct water sampling is that not all of the pollutants will 
be fully emitted from the cooling water and the concentrations of these 
chemicals will tend to build up in closed-loop recirculation heat 
exchange systems. For these reasons, a difference in the inlet and 
outlet of the cooling tower (or heat exchanger) is often proposed as 
the appropriate measure by which to define a leak. While the inlet and 
outlet measurements may provide a better estimate of the actual 
emissions, the fact that hydrocarbons are accumulating in the cooling 
water is evidence that there is a leak. Furthermore, our analysis 
indicates that small leaks are generally cost effective to repair. 
Thus, we are proposing to include language in the uniform standard that 
would allow direct water sampling as an alternative to the Modified El 
Paso Method, provided that the analysis can fully characterize all 
volatile compounds that could enter the cooling water from the process 
fluid in the heat exchanger. We are also proposing to reference this 
language from Refinery MACT 1. Where direct water sampling is used, we 
are proposing to require the determination of a leak to be based only 
on the concentration in the cooling tower return line or selected heat 
exchanger exit line(s) prior to exposure to the atmosphere (i.e., we 
would not allow determination of a leak as the difference from inlet to 
outlet for closed-loop recirculation systems). We anticipate that most 
petroleum refinery owners or operators would elect to use the Modified 
El Paso Method, but there may be certain process streams that have a 
limited number of volatile compounds where the direct water sampling 
approach would be a cost effective alternative.
    Finally, one of the issues for which API requested reconsideration 
(Issue No. 4) was the uncertainty in the requirements for monitoring 
cooling water flow or recirculation rates. This parameter is required 
as a means to determine the potential emissions during a delay of 
repair. As we indicated in the preamble to the final rule (74 FR 
55675), ``[i]t is anticipated that facilities will monitor at locations 
where the flow rate is known based on pump curves, heat balance 
calculations or other engineering methods. A continuous flow monitor is 
not required, but a flow rate at the monitoring location is needed to 
assess the potential mass emissions associated with a leak.'' Although 
this issue was discussed in the preamble to the final rule, the rule 
language was silent on the allowable methods to determine the flow rate 
for the required calculation. Therefore, we are proposing to clarify 
our original intent by specifying in the regulatory text for the 
uniform standards for heat exchange systems that ``the flow rate may be 
based on direct measurement, pump curves, heat balance calculations, or 
other engineering methods.'' This provision would be cross-referenced 
for purposes of Refinery MACT 1.

B. What is the rationale for the proposed uniform standards?

    In a number of cases, the EPA has established CAA standards for 
different source categories that regulate materials from the same kind 
of emission point. Standards for a given type of emission point may 
require application of controls with similar control efficiencies and 
include similar design, equipment or operating standards, even though 
these emission points may be located at different types of sources or 
facilities. Although many of the characteristics may be the same, some 
requirements may need to vary among the various source categories.
    To avoid duplicative or disjointed requirements, and to promote 
consistency among technical requirements for similar emission points in 
different source categories, the EPA has established several common 
control requirement subparts describing testing, monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for certain emission points 
and emission controls that can be referenced from multiple source 
categories. For instance, we promulgated standard requirements for 
selected emission points (i.e., containers, surface impoundments, oil-
water separators and organic-water separators, tanks, individual drain 
systems) in individual subparts under the Off-Site Waste and Recovery 
Operations NESHAP (61 FR 34158, July 1, 1996) (referred to as the OSWRO 
MACT) and we promulgated subparts for other selected emission points 
(i.e., closed vent systems, control devices, recovery devices, and 
routing to a fuel gas system or a process; equipment leaks; and storage 
vessels) as part of the Generic MACT program (64 FR 34854, June 29, 
1999). The Generic MACT standards for selected emission points, which 
were promulgated under 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, UU and WW, were 
then referenced in NESHAP requirements for individual source 
categories.
    Consolidation of compliance requirements under these subparts 
allowed for ease of reference, provided administrative convenience and 
assured consistency in the technical requirements, where appropriate, 
of the air emission control requirements applied to similar emission 
points located at sources regulated under different source category 
regulations. The 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, UU and WW are 
emission point- and emissions control-specific. They specify 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, but generally do 
not specify emissions reduction performance requirements or 
applicability thresholds. Instead, the referencing subpart specifies 
the emissions reduction performance requirements and applicability 
thresholds.
    By establishing these emission point- and emissions control-
specific subparts, other source-category-specific regulations were able 
to reference a common set of design, operating, testing, inspection, 
monitoring, repair, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for air 
emissions controls. This eliminated the potential for duplicative or 
conflicting technical requirements, and assured consistency of the air 
emission requirements applied to similar emission points, while 
allowing the specific emission standard to be set within the context of 
the source-specific regulations. Additionally, creating emission point-
specific and emissions control-specific subparts ensured that all 
regulations that cross-referenced these subparts

[[Page 970]]

could be amended in a consistent manner through one regulatory action.
    This action proposes uniform standards for heat exchange systems 
(40 CFR part 65, subpart L). We are proposing to establish the uniform 
standards under 40 CFR part 65 and anticipate, through future notice-
and-comment rulemaking, to cross-reference subpart L from source 
category emission standards within at least two different parts of 
title 40 of the CFR, parts 60 and 63, which establish NSPS and MACT 
standards, respectively. We anticipate that we will see the same 
benefits for this uniform standard as we have seen for previous 
emission point- and emissions control-specific subparts, as described 
above, including the ability to reference a common set of standards for 
the same type of emission point located at sources within different 
source categories, which will maximize consistency between source 
categories for that type of emission point.
    As with the common control requirement subparts previously 
promulgated, we are proposing that 40 CFR part 65, subpart L would 
include technical requirements and would not specify applicability 
cutoffs or emissions reduction performance requirements, because these 
requirements are more properly established in source-specific rules. 
However, we are proposing a default leak action level and monitoring 
frequency that would apply if the referencing subpart does not specify 
these parameters. In the rulemaking actions revising standards to 
cross-reference subpart L, we would address whether the referencing 
subpart should cross-reference subpart L in its entirety or only a 
subset of subpart L. For those provisions not cross-referenced by the 
source-specific subpart, the requirement would be specifically 
addressed in the source-specific subpart. Moreover, for those 
provisions that are cross-referenced, we could consider whether the 
source-specific subpart should include more stringent requirements. For 
example, the referencing subpart could specify continuous monitoring 
rather than periodic monitoring if it is determined that continuous 
monitoring is appropriate for the heat exchange systems in that source 
category.
    As we revise or promulgate source-specific standards that have 
sources addressed by a uniform standard, we would propose whether and 
to what extent we reference the uniform standards; in making that 
decision we would consider the applicable CAA requirements, analyses of 
the individual source category and the similarity of emission 
characteristics and applicable controls. We would consider factors such 
as: (1) The volume and concentration of emissions; (2) the type of 
emissions; (3) the similarity of emission points; (4) the cost and 
effectiveness of controls for one source category relative to the cost 
and effectiveness of controls for the other source category; (5) 
whether a source has unusual characteristics that might require 
different analytical methods; and (6) whether any of the sources have 
existing emission controls that are dissimilar and more stringent than 
controls required for similar sources outside the source category. 
These factors would be considered on a source category-specific basis 
to ensure that sources are appropriately similar, and that emissions 
control technologies and reductions demonstrated outside of a source 
category are achievable for new and existing sources in an applicable 
source category.
    As we noted previously in this preamble, the rationale for each 
determination that some or all of the provisions of 40 CFR part 65, 
subpart L should be cross-referenced for an individual referencing 
subpart in light of the applicable CAA requirements would be addressed 
in the rulemaking for the individual subpart at the time of proposal 
and we would provide an opportunity for public comment. Likewise, for 
each review of an existing standard that results in a determination 
that some or all of the provisions in subpart L should be cross-
referenced and that it would be consistent with the applicable CAA 
requirements to do so, a description of the analyses performed as part 
of that review would be presented in the rulemaking for the individual 
subpart at the time of proposal and we would provide an opportunity for 
public comment. We would also conduct an assessment of the costs, 
emission reduction, economic and other impacts as they relate to the 
specific source category at issue at that time.
    We are aware that there are heat exchange systems at facilities 
other than just petroleum refineries (e.g., some chemical manufacturing 
facilities) in which the process fluid contains hydrocarbons that can 
leak into the cooling water. Some of these heat exchange systems are 
subject to the same state requirements as heat exchange systems at 
petroleum refineries (e.g., many cooling towers in Texas that are 
subject to the TCEQ Highly Reactive VOC rule are associated with 
ethylene production units). Therefore, we believe there are indications 
that the uniform requirements included in proposed 40 CFR part 65, 
subpart L could be appropriate requirements for other source 
categories. We note that the Modified El Paso Method has been 
demonstrated at numerous sources as an effective means of identifying 
leaks in heat exchange systems and the method has been used extensively 
for over 20 years.

C. What is the rationale for the proposed general provisions to the 
uniform standards?

    We are currently proposing general provisions for the uniform 
standards in 40 CFR part 65, subpart H. The existing General Provisions 
of subpart A of 40 CFR part 65 would be renamed to reflect 
applicability only to the current Consolidated Federal Air Rules, which 
comprise subparts A through G of part 65. The Uniform Standards General 
Provisions would apply to sources that must comply with the uniform 
standards for heat exchange systems in 40 CFR part 65, subpart L, if 
finalized, as well as sources that must comply with any future uniform 
standards promulgated under 40 CFR part 65.
    The General Provisions of 40 CFR part 65, subpart H would define 
the applicability of the uniform standards for proposed 40 CFR part 65, 
subpart L and for any other uniform standards that may be codified in 
the future in 40 CFR part 65, subparts I through M. These provisions 
would include requirements or definitions that we anticipate would 
apply to two or more subparts of the uniform standards. The General 
Provisions of subpart H would apply when another subpart references the 
use of the uniform standards under subparts I through M. As proposed, 
subpart H also clarifies that the General Provisions applicable to the 
referencing subpart (i.e., subpart A of 40 CFR part 60 or 40 CFR part 
63) would continue to apply to sources as specified in the referencing 
subpart and that we are not proposing to include specific requirements 
already addressed in the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 60 or 40 CFR 
part 63 in the General Provisions of subpart H. In creating each of the 
uniform standards, we would determine which provisions in the General 
Provisions in subpart H should be referenced by that uniform standard.
    The proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart H also contains requirements 
for determining compliance with periodic requirements established in a 
uniform standard in 40 CFR part 65, subpart I through M. Consistent 
with the HON (40 CFR 63.100(k)(9)), we are proposing that terms such as 
weekly, monthly and annually refer to the standard calendar periods and 
that the owner or operator

[[Page 971]]

would have to complete periodic requirements within each standard 
calendar period.
    We are also proposing that there must be a ``reasonable interval'' 
between completion of two instances of the same task. This is necessary 
because an owner or operator could theoretically comply with monthly 
requirements by completing the task at the beginning of one month, the 
end of the next month and the beginning of a third month (which could 
be only a day after the end of the second month). This is not 
consistent with our intention in requiring the task to be completed 
monthly. The time periods we are proposing as reasonable intervals are 
consistent with the reasonable intervals for batch processes at 40 CFR 
60.482-1(f)(3) (Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in 
the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry; 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart VV) and 40 CFR 63.100(k)(9)(ii)(A). The proposed language 
ensures that periodic requirements are conducted on a consistent and 
relatively uniform schedule from one period to the next, while also 
providing some degree of flexibility. We are not proposing to specify a 
reasonable interval for requirements that occur less frequently than 
annually; instead, if a uniform standard imposes a periodic requirement 
that must be performed less frequently than annually, that uniform 
standard would include requirements for determining compliance with 
that periodic obligation.
    We also note that the reasonable interval provisions are not 
intended to imply that periodic requirements cannot be conducted more 
frequently than required. For example, if a source is required to 
monitor a piece of equipment quarterly, but the owner or operator 
elects to monitor monthly or a state provision requires more frequent 
monitoring, the source is still in compliance with the quarterly 
monitoring requirement. Even though some of the monitoring events occur 
closer together than the reasonable interval, there would still be a 
reasonable interval between the monitoring events that could be relied 
on to meet the monitoring requirement. For the same reason, if a source 
has a continuous monitor in place, the source is still considered to be 
in compliance with the periodic monitoring requirement.
    Finally, we are proposing common definitions for terms that we 
expect will be used in two or more of the uniform standards. We have 
defined the term ``regulated source'' to mean the stationary source, 
the group of stationary sources or the portion of a stationary source 
that is regulated by a relevant standard or other requirement 
established pursuant to a referencing subpart. Because we intend to 
propose rulemakings that would reference the uniform standards from 40 
CFR part 60 and/or 40 CFR part 63, we have proposed a definition of 
``regulated material'' that is more inclusive of potential pollutants 
that would be regulated than previous definitions of this term (e.g., 
subpart SS of part 63). Specifically, we are proposing to define 
``regulated material'' as chemicals or groups of chemicals (such as VOC 
or HAP) that are regulated by the referencing subpart.

V. Summary of Impacts

    This action will have no cost, environmental, energy, or economic 
impacts beyond those impacts presented in the October 2009 final rule 
for heat exchange systems at petroleum refineries and may result in a 
cost savings for refiners who select the proposed alternative 
monitoring frequency. The only sources affected by this action would be 
petroleum refineries and there would be no additional impacts for heat 
exchange systems at petroleum refineries beyond those presented in the 
October 2009 final rule that established these requirements. This 
action largely moves those requirements from 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
CC, which is specific to petroleum refineries, to 40 CFR part 65, 
subpart L, which would be cross-referenced by subpart CC. The intention 
is that subpart L would provide uniform standards such that other MACT 
standards, as well as NSPS, could cross-reference those requirements 
for heat exchangers through future regulatory action. In addition to 
this structural change, we are proposing to provide an additional 
monitoring alternative for quarterly monitoring at a leak action level 
of total strippable hydrocarbons of 3.1 ppmv in the stripping air (or 
40 ppbw in the cooling water). Sources could elect this monitoring 
alternative in place of the monitoring requirement that is currently 
provided. This alternative is expected to lower the costs associated 
with the October 2009 requirements, while achieving the same 
environmental impacts. Finally, the clarifications and other changes we 
are proposing in response to reconsideration are cost neutral.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is a 
``significant regulatory action'' because it may raise novel legal or 
policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 
and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any 
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in 
the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
We are proposing to move the information collection requirements from 
the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) to the Heat 
Exchange System Uniform Standards (40 CFR part 65, subpart L), but we 
are not proposing to change the information collection requirements 
themselves. The other proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC 
would not affect the information collection requirements for petroleum 
refineries. Therefore, we have not revised the information collection 
request (ICR) for the existing petroleum refinery rule, nor have we 
developed an ICR for the Heat Exchange System Uniform Standards. 
However, OMB has previously approved the information collection 
requirements in the existing regulations (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq., and assigned OMB control numbers 2060-0340 and 2060-0619. The OMB 
control numbers for the EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 
The EPA is proposing to amend the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently 
approved ICR control numbers issued by OMB for various regulations to 
list the information requirements for heat exchange systems subject to 
the NESHAP for petroleum refineries promulgated October 28, 2009 (74 FR 
55670).
    The EPA will continue to present OMB control numbers in a 
consolidated table format to be codified in 40 CFR part 9 of the 
agency's regulations, and in each CFR volume containing the EPA 
regulations. The table lists the section numbers with reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements and the

[[Page 972]]

current OMB control numbers. This listing of the OMB control numbers 
and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfy the requirements 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and OMB's 
implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act, or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small 
organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed action 
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business 
that meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small 
businesses at 13 CFR 121.201 (a firm having no more than 1,500 
employees); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed action on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed 
amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, and proposed uniform 
standards in 40 CFR part 65, subpart L would not change the existing 
heat exchange system requirements for any entity; therefore, they will 
not have a significant economic impact on any entity, including small 
entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed action contains no federal mandates under the 
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local or tribal governments or 
the private sector, because it does not contain a federal mandate that 
may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any 
one year. As discussed earlier in this preamble, these amendments have 
no impact on costs. Therefore, this proposed rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This proposed action is also not subject to the requirements of 
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed 
action contains no requirements that apply to such governments, and 
imposes no obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It would not 
have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship 
between the national government and the states or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. It would not modify existing 
responsibilities or create new responsibilities among the EPA Regional 
offices, states or local enforcement agencies. Thus, Executive Order 
13132 does not apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with the EPA 
policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local 
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed 
action from state and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The proposed 
action imposes no requirements on tribal governments and will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed 
action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or 
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based 
solely on technology performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action,'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution 
or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory 
activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law 
or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs 
the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency 
decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA 
proposes to use ``Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for 
Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water 
Sources,'' Revision Number One, dated January 2003 and will incorporate 
the method by reference (see 40 CFR 65.265). This method is available 
at http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/sipdocs/2002-12-HGB/02046sipapp_ado.pdf or from the Texas Commission 
on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Library, Post Office Box 13087, Austin, 
Texas 78711-3087, telephone number (512) 239-0028. This method was 
chosen because it is an effective means to determine leaks from heat 
exchangers and it is the method used in the best-performing facilities. 
This TCEQ method uses a dynamic or flow-through system for air 
stripping a sample of the water and analyzing the resultant off-gases 
for VOC using a common flame ionization detector analyzer. While direct 
water analyses, such as purge and trap analyses of water samples using 
gas chromatography and/or mass spectrometry techniques, have been shown 
to be effective for cooling tower measurements of heavier molecular 
weight hydrocarbons with relatively high boiling points, it has

[[Page 973]]

been determined that this approach may be ineffective for capture and 
measurement of VOC with lower boiling points, such as ethylene, 
propylene, 1,3-butadiene and butenes. The VOC with a low molecular 
weight and boiling point are generally lost in the sample collection 
step of purge/trap type analyses. Consequently, this TCEQ air stripping 
method is used for cooling tower and other applicable water matrix 
emission measurements of VOC with boiling points below 140 
[deg]Fahrenheit.
    To test water samples for purgeable VOC, the EPA proposes to use 
SW-846 Method 5030B, Purge-and-Trap for Aqueous Samples, and SW-846 
Method 8260C, Aromatic and Halogenated Volatiles by Gas Chromatography 
Using Photoionization and/or Electrolytic Conductivity Detectors, dated 
December 1996, and will incorporate these methods by reference (see 40 
CFR 65.265). These methods are available at http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/online/index.htm or the National Technical 
Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 
22161, (703) 605-6000 or (800) 553-6847 or for purchase from the 
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 
Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512-1800. A VCS, ASTM Method D5790-95, 
Standard Test Method for Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in 
Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, 
reapproved 2006, is an acceptable alternative to SW-846 Methods 5030B 
and 8260C and will be incorporated by reference (see 40 CFR 65.265). 
This method is available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor 
Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, (610) 832-9585 or 
(877) 909-2786 or at http://www.astm.org/index.shtml.
    These methods were chosen because purge-and-trap analyses of water 
samples using gas chromatography and/or mass spectrometry techniques, 
have been shown to be effective for cooling tower measurements of 
heavier molecular weight hydrocarbons with boiling points as low as -13 
[deg]Celsius (9 [deg]Fahrenheit). These methods measure a wide range of 
VOC, and we expect that these methods are applicable for analysis of 
the majority of compounds that will need to be analyzed at the 
facilities covered by this subpart.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this 
regulation.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the NESHAP 
General Provisions or under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General 
Provisions, as applicable, a source may apply to the EPA for permission 
to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements 
in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications or 
procedures in the proposed rule.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it would not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. The proposed action would not relax the control measures 
on regulated sources and therefore, would not cause emissions increases 
from these sources.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum 
Refineries; National Uniform Emission Standards for Heat Exchange 
Systems

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 65

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporations by 
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 30, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 9--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135, et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 
2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 
9701; 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 
1330, 1342, 1344, 1345(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 
CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 
300g, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-
2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857, et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 
7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

    2. The table in Sec.  9.1 is amended by revising the entry for 
63.655 under the heading, ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants for Source Categories,'' to read as follows:

Sec.  9.1  OMB Approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           40 CFR citation                      OMB control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
                             Categories \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.655..............................                2060-0340, 2060-0619
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 974]]

 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
\3\ The ICR referenced in this section of the table encompass the
  applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,
  which are not independent information collection requirements.

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    3. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

    4. Section 63.14 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(n)(1).

Subpart CC--[Amended]

    5. Section 63.640 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text and
    b. Revising paragraph (h)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.640  Applicability and designation of affected source.

    (a) This subpart applies to petroleum refining process units and to 
related emissions points that are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (8) of this section that are located at a plant site and that 
meet the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section:
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 
section, new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after 
July 14, 1994, shall be in compliance with this subpart upon initial 
startup or August 18, 1995, whichever is later.
    (i) At new sources that commence construction or reconstruction 
after July 14, 1994, but on or before September 4, 2007, heat exchange 
systems shall comply with the existing source requirements for heat 
exchange systems specified in Sec.  63.654 no later than October 29, 
2012.
    (ii) At new sources that commence construction or reconstruction 
after September 4, 2007, heat exchange systems shall be in compliance 
with the new source requirements in Sec.  63.654 upon initial startup 
or October 28, 2009, whichever is later.
* * * * *
    6. Section 63.641 is amended by:
    a. Removing the definitions of ``Cooling tower return line'' and 
``Heat exchanger exit line'' and
    b. Revising the definition of ``Heat exchange system'' to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.641  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Heat exchange system means a device or collection of devices used 
to transfer heat from process fluids to water without intentional 
direct contact of the process fluid with the water (i.e., non-contact 
heat exchanger) and to transport and/or cool the water in a closed-loop 
recirculation system (cooling tower system) or a once-through system 
(e.g., river or pond water). For closed-loop recirculation systems, the 
heat exchange system consists of a cooling tower, all heat exchangers 
that are serviced by that cooling tower and all water lines to and from 
the heat exchanger(s). For once-through systems, the heat exchange 
system consists of one or more heat exchangers servicing an individual 
process unit and all water lines to and from the heat exchanger(s). 
Intentional direct contact with process fluids results in the formation 
of a wastewater.
* * * * *
    7. Section 63.654 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.654  Heat exchange systems.

    (a) The owner or operator of a heat exchange system that meets the 
criteria in Sec.  63.640(c)(8) must comply with the requirements of 
Sec.  65.610 as specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this 
section.
    (b) For purposes of compliance with Sec.  65.610, the following 
terms have the meanings specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2).
    (1) ``Regulated material'' means any ``hazardous air pollutant'' as 
defined by Sec.  63.641 of this subpart.
    (2) ``In regulated material service'' means ``in organic hazardous 
air pollutant service'' as defined by Sec.  63.641 of this subpart.
    (c) For a heat exchange system at an existing source, the owner or 
operator must comply with the monitoring frequency and leak definition 
as defined in paragraph (c)(1) of this section or comply with the 
monitoring frequency and leak definition as defined in paragraph (c)(2) 
of this section. The owner or operator of an affected heat exchange 
system may choose to comply with paragraph (c)(1) for some heat 
exchange systems at the petroleum refinery and comply with paragraph 
(c)(2) for other heat exchange systems. However, for each affected heat 
exchange system, the owner or operator of an affected heat exchange 
system must elect one monitoring alternative that will apply at all 
times. If the owner or operator intends to change the monitoring 
alternative that applies to a heat exchange system, the owner or 
operator must notify the Administrator 30 days in advance of such a 
change. All ``leaks'' identified prior to changing monitoring 
alternatives must be repaired.
    (1) Monitor monthly using a leak action level defined as either a 
total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the 
stripping gas of 6.2 parts per million by volume or a total strippable 
hydrocarbon concentration in the cooling water of 80 parts per billion 
by weight.
    (2) Monitor quarterly using a leak action level defined as either a 
total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the 
stripping gas of 3.1 parts per million by volume or a total strippable 
hydrocarbon concentration in the cooling water of 40 parts per billion 
by weight.
    (d) For a heat exchange system at a new source, the owner or 
operator must monitor monthly using a leak action level defined as 
either a total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the 
stripping gas of 3.1 parts per million by volume or a total strippable 
hydrocarbon concentration in the cooling water of 40 parts per billion 
by weight.
    (e) For the purposes of Sec.  65.610(f), the delay of repair action 
level is a total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in 
the stripping gas of 62 parts per million by volume or a total 
strippable hydrocarbon concentration in the cooling water of 800 parts 
per billion by weight.
    8. Section 63.655 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (f)(1)(vi);
    b. Revising paragraph (g)(9);
    c. Adding paragraph (h)(7); and
    d. Revising paragraph (i)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.655  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vi) For each heat exchange system, identification of the heat 
exchange systems that are subject to the requirements of this subpart. 
For heat exchange systems at existing sources,

[[Page 975]]

the owner or operator shall indicate whether monitoring will be 
conducted as specified in Sec.  63.654(c)(1) or Sec.  63.654(c)(2).
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (9) For heat exchange systems, Periodic Reports must include the 
information specified in Sec.  65.620.
    (h) * * *
    (7) The owner or operator of a heat exchange system at an existing 
source must notify the Administrator at least 30 calendar days prior to 
changing from one of the monitoring options specified in Sec.  
63.654(c) to the other.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (4) The owner or operator of a heat exchange system subject to the 
monitoring requirements in Sec.  63.654 shall comply with the 
recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  65.625.
* * * * *

PART 65--[AMENDED]

    9. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:

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

    10. Part 65 is amended by adding subpart H to read as follows.
Subpart H--National Uniform Emission Standards General Provisions
Sec.
65.200 What is the purpose of this subpart?
65.265 What methods are incorporated by reference for subparts I 
through M of this part?
65.270 How do I determine what regulated sources are in regulated 
material service?
65.280 How do I determine compliance with periodic requirements?
65.295 What definitions apply to subparts H through M of this part?

Subpart H--National Uniform Emission Standards General Provisions

Sec.  65.200  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    These provisions apply to you if a subpart of part 60, 61 or 63 of 
this chapter references the use of this subpart. The General Provisions 
applicable to the referencing subpart (subpart A of part 60, 61 or 63) 
apply to this subpart as specified in the referencing subpart. The 
General Provisions for the Consolidated Federal Air Rule (subpart A of 
this part) do not apply to subparts I through M of this part.

Sec.  65.265  What methods are incorporated by reference for subparts I 
through M of this part?

    The materials listed in this section are incorporated by reference 
in the corresponding sections. These incorporations by reference (IBR) 
were approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These materials are 
incorporated as they exist on the date of the approval, and notice of 
any change in these materials will be published in the Federal 
Register. The materials are available for purchase at the corresponding 
addresses noted below, and all are available for inspection at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), at the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. EPA, 401 M St. SW., 
Washington, DC, and at the EPA Library (C267-01), U.S. EPA, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina. For information on the availability of 
this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (a) The following material is available from the Texas Commission 
on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Library, Post Office Box 13087, Austin, 
Texas 78711-3087, telephone number (512) 239-0028 or at http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/sipdocs/2002-12-HGB/02046sipapp_ado.pdf:
    (1) ``Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for 
Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water 
Sources,'' Revision Number One, dated January 2003, Sampling Procedures 
Manual, Appendix P: Cooling Tower Monitoring, prepared by Texas 
Commission on Environmental Quality, January 31, 2003, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  65.610(a)(3)(i) and (g)(4)(i) and for Sec.  65.625(d)(4) of 
this subpart.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (b) The following materials are available for purchase from the 
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, 
Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 605-6000 or (800) 553-6847 or for purchase 
from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 
Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512-1800 or at http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/online/index.htm. The following methods as 
published in the test methods compendium known as ``Test Methods for 
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA Publication 
SW-846, Third Edition. A suffix of ``A'' in the method number indicates 
revision one (the method has been revised once). A suffix of ``B'' in 
the method number indicates revision two (the method has been revised 
twice).
    (1) SW-846 Method 5030B, ``Purge-and-Trap for Aqueous Samples,'' 
dated December 1996, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  65.610(a)(3)(ii) and 
65.625(d)(5) of this subpart, and
    (2) SW-846 Method 8260C, ``Aromatic and Halogenated Volatiles by 
Gas Chromatography Using Photoionization and/or Electrolytic 
Conductivity Detectors,'' dated December 1996, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  65.610(a)(3)(ii) and 65.625(d)(5) of this subpart.
    (c) The following materials are available for purchase from ASTM 
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, 
PA 19428, (610) 832-9585 or (877) 909-2786 or at http://www.astm.org/index.shtml:
    (1) ASTM Method D5790-95, ``Standard Test Method for Measurement of 
Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas 
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,'' reapproved 2006, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  65.610(a)(3)(ii) and 65.625(d)(5) of this subpart.
    (2) [Reserved]

Sec.  65.270  How do I determine what regulated sources are in 
regulated material service?

    If you are subject to a uniform standard that includes requirements 
for regulated sources ``in regulated material service,'' you must 
determine if regulated sources or equipment are in regulated material 
service using either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, as 
applicable.
    (a) If the referencing subpart includes a procedure or definition 
of ``in regulated material service,'' you must use the procedure or 
definition of ``in regulated material service'' in the referencing 
subpart.
    (b) If the referencing subpart does not include a procedure or 
definition of ``in regulated material service,'' you must use the 
procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Regulated sources or equipment that can reasonably be expected 
to be in regulated material service are presumed to be in regulated 
material service unless you demonstrate that the regulated sources or 
equipment are not in regulated material service.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(1) and (3) of this section, 
you must use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 if the material 
is in the gas phase or either a combination of SW-846 Methods 5030B and 
8260C or ASTM Method D5790-95 if the material in the liquid phase and 
either of the methods specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)

[[Page 976]]

or (b)(2)(ii) of this section to demonstrate that regulated sources or 
equipment are not in regulated material service.
    (i) Determine the weight percent regulated material content of the 
process fluid that is contained in or contacts the regulated source as 
the arithmetic sum of the weight percent concentration of each compound 
defined as regulated material. Demonstrate that the regulated material 
concentration is less than 5 weight percent on an annual average basis.
    (ii) Demonstrate that the non-regulated material content exceeds 95 
percent by weight on an annual average basis.
    (3) You may use good engineering judgment rather than the 
procedures in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section to determine 
if regulated sources or equipment are not in regulated material 
service. However, when you and the Administrator do not agree on 
whether the regulated sources or equipment are in regulated material 
service, you must use the procedures in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section to resolve the disagreement.

Sec.  65.280  How do I determine compliance with periodic requirements?

    Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, if you are 
subject to a requirement in subpart I through M of this part to 
complete a particular task on a periodic basis, you must comply as 
described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
    (a) All terms in subparts I through M of this part that define a 
period of time for completion of required tasks (e.g., weekly, monthly, 
quarterly, annually), refer to the standard calendar periods.
    (b) You may comply with such periodic requirements by completing 
the required task any time within the standard calendar period, 
provided there is a reasonable interval between completion of two 
instances of the same task. Reasonable intervals are described in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Tasks that you are required to complete weekly must be 
separated by at least 3 calendar days.
    (2) Tasks that you are required to complete monthly must be 
separated by at least 14 calendar days.
    (3) Tasks that you are required to complete quarterly must be 
separated by at least 30 calendar days.
    (4) Tasks that you are required to complete semiannually (i.e., 
once every 2 quarters) must be separated by at least 60 calendar days.
    (5) Tasks that you are required to complete annually must be 
separated by at least 120 calendar days.
    (c) Exceptions. (1) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not 
apply to reports that you are required to submit under the General 
Provisions applicable to the referencing subpart (e.g., subpart A of 
part 60, 61 or 63).
    (2) If the paragraph in subpart I, J, K, L or M that imposes a 
periodic requirement specifies a different schedule for complying with 
that requirement, you must follow that schedule instead of the 
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
    (3) Nothing in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall be 
construed as prohibiting you from conducting a periodic task at a more 
frequent interval than required.

Sec.  65.295  What definitions apply to subparts H through M of this 
part?

    All terms used in subparts H through M of this part shall have the 
meaning given them in the Clean Air Act and in this section.
    Owner or operator means any person who owns, leases, operates, 
controls, or supervises a regulated source or a stationary source of 
which a regulated source is a part.
    Referencing subpart means the subpart that refers you to one or 
more applicable uniform standards (subparts I through M of this part). 
A referencing subpart for one uniform standard may also be a 
referencing subpart for another uniform standard as long as the 
referencing subpart specifically refers you to each of those uniform 
standards.
    Regulated material means chemicals or groups of chemicals (such as 
volatile organic compounds or hazardous air pollutants) that are 
regulated by the referencing subpart.
    Regulated source means the stationary source, the group of 
stationary sources or the portion of a stationary source that is 
regulated by a relevant standard or other requirement established 
pursuant to a referencing subpart.
    11. Part 65 is amended by adding subpart L to read as follows.
Subpart L--National Uniform Emission Standards for Heat Exchange 
Systems

What This Subpart Covers

Sec.
65.600 What is the purpose of this subpart?
65.605 Am I subject to this subpart?

Work Practice Standards

65.610 What monitoring and repair requirements must I meet?

Notifications, Reports and Records

65.615 What notifications must I submit and when?
65.620 What reports must I submit and when?
65.625 What records must I keep?

Other Requirements and Information

65.630 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
65.635 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
65.640 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Subpart L--National Uniform Emission Standards for Heat Exchange 
Systems

What This Subpart Covers

Sec.  65.600  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    The provisions of this subpart apply to the control of air 
emissions from heat exchange systems for which another subpart 
references the use of this subpart for such air emission control.

Sec.  65.605  Am I subject to this subpart?

    These air emission standards for heat exchange systems apply to you 
only if you own or operate a facility subject to a referencing subpart 
that specifies the use of this subpart.

Work Practice Standards

Sec.  65.610  What monitoring and repair requirements must I meet?

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, you must 
perform monitoring to identify leaks of total strippable hydrocarbons 
from each heat exchange system subject to the requirements of this 
subpart according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (1) Monitoring locations for closed-loop recirculation heat 
exchange systems. For each closed loop recirculating heat exchange 
system, you must collect and analyze a sample from the location(s) 
described in either paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Each cooling tower return line prior to exposure to air for 
each heat exchange system in regulated material service.
    (ii) Selected heat exchanger exit line(s) so that each heat 
exchanger or group of heat exchangers in regulated material service 
within a heat exchange system is covered by the selected monitoring 
location(s).
    (2) Monitoring locations for once-through heat exchange systems. 
For each once-through heat exchange system, you must collect and 
analyze a sample from the location(s) described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) 
of this section. You may also elect to collect and analyze an 
additional sample from the location(s) described in paragraph 
(a)(2)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Selected heat exchanger exit line(s) so that each heat 
exchanger or group of heat exchangers in regulated material

[[Page 977]]

service within a heat exchange system is covered by the selected 
monitoring location(s).
    (ii) The inlet water feed line for a once-through heat exchange 
system prior to any heat exchanger. If multiple heat exchange systems 
use the same water feed (i.e., inlet water from the same primary water 
source), you may monitor at one representative location and use the 
monitoring results for that sampling location for all heat exchange 
systems that use that same water feed.
    (3) Monitoring method. You must determine the total strippable 
hydrocarbon concentration (or surrogate pollutant concentration, as 
specified in the referencing subpart) at each monitoring location using 
any of the analytical methods specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through 
(iii) of this section.
    (i) Determine the total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (in 
parts per million by volume (ppmv) as methane) from the air stripping 
testing system using ``Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) 
for Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water 
Sources,'' Revision Number One, dated January 2003, Sampling Procedures 
Manual, Appendix P: Cooling Tower Monitoring, prepared by Texas 
Commission on Environmental Quality, January 31, 2003 (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  65.265) using a flame ionization detector (FID) 
analyzer.
    (ii) Determine the total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (in 
parts per billion by weight (ppbw)) in the cooling water using a 
combination of SW-846 Method 5030B, ``Purge-and-Trap for Aqueous 
Samples'' and SW-846 Method 8260C, ``Aromatic and Halogenated Volatiles 
by Gas Chromatography Using Photoionization and/or Electrolytic 
Conductivity Detectors,'' dated December 1996 (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  65.265) or ASTM Method D5790-95, ``Standard Test 
Method for Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by 
Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,'' reapproved 
2006 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  65.265). Unless otherwise 
specified by the referencing subpart, the target list of compounds 
shall be generated based on a pre-survey sample and analysis by gas 
chromatography/mass spectrometry and process knowledge, to include all 
compounds that can potentially leak into the cooling water. If SW-846 
Methods 5030B and 8260C or ASTM Method D5790-95 are not applicable for 
all compounds that can potentially leak into the cooling water for a 
given heat exchange system, you cannot use these monitoring methods for 
that heat exchange system.
    (iii) Determine the total strippable hydrocarbon concentration or 
surrogate pollutant concentration as specified in the referencing 
subpart (in ppbw) in the cooling water using the analytical methods 
specified in the referencing subpart.
    (4) Monitoring frequency. You must determine the total strippable 
hydrocarbon concentration (or surrogate pollutant concentration as 
specified in the referencing subpart) at each monitoring location at 
the frequencies specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iii) of this 
section, unless otherwise provided in the referencing subpart.
    (i) For heat exchange systems for which you have not delayed repair 
of any leaks, monitor at least quarterly.
    (ii) For heat exchange systems for which you have delayed repair as 
provided in paragraph (f) of this section, monitor at least monthly.
    (iii) If you elect to monitor the inlet water feed line for a once-
through heat exchange system as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of 
this section, you must monitor the inlet water feed line at least 
quarterly.
    (b) A heat exchange system is exempt from the monitoring 
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section if it meets any one of 
the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) All heat exchangers that are in regulated material service 
within the heat exchange system operate with the minimum pressure on 
the cooling water side at least 35 kilopascals greater than the maximum 
pressure on the process side.
    (2) The heat exchange system does not contain any heat exchangers 
that are in regulated material service, as defined in this subpart or 
as defined in the referencing subpart, as applicable.
    (3) The heat exchange system has a maximum cooling water flow rate 
of 10 gallons per minute or less.
    (c) Unless otherwise specified by the referencing subpart, the leak 
action level is either a total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as 
methane) in the stripping gas of 3.1 ppmv or a total strippable 
hydrocarbon concentration in the cooling water of 40 ppbw. A leak is 
defined as described in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section, as 
applicable.
    (1) For once-through heat exchange systems for which you monitor 
the inlet water feed as described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this 
section, a leak is detected if the difference in the measurement value 
of the sample taken from a location specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of 
this section and the measurement value of the corresponding sample 
taken from the location specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this 
section equals or exceeds the leak action level.
    (2) For all other heat exchange systems, a leak is detected if a 
measurement value taken according to the requirements in paragraph (a) 
of this section equals or exceeds the leak action level.
    (d) If a leak is detected pursuant to the monitoring provisions of 
paragraph (a), you must repair the leak to reduce the measured 
concentration to below the applicable action level as soon as 
practicable, but no later than 45 days after identifying the leak, 
except as specified in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section. Repair 
includes re-monitoring as specified in paragraph (a) of this section to 
verify that the measured concentration is below the applicable action 
level. Actions that you can take to achieve repair include, but are not 
limited to:
    (1) Physical modifications to the leaking heat exchanger, such as 
welding the leak or replacing a tube;
    (2) Blocking the leaking tube within the heat exchanger;
    (3) Changing the pressure so that water flows into the process 
fluid;
    (4) Replacing the heat exchanger or heat exchanger bundle; or
    (5) Isolating, bypassing, or otherwise removing the leaking heat 
exchanger from service until it is otherwise repaired.
    (e) If you detect a leak when monitoring a cooling tower return 
line or heat exchanger exit line under paragraph (a) of this section, 
you may conduct additional monitoring following the requirements in 
paragraph (a) of this section to further isolate each heat exchanger or 
group of heat exchangers in regulated material service within the heat 
exchange system for which the leak was detected. If you do not detect 
any leaks when conducting additional monitoring for each heat exchanger 
or group of heat exchangers in regulated material service, the heat 
exchange system is excluded from the repair requirements in paragraph 
(d) of this section.
    (f) Unless otherwise specified by the referencing subpart, the 
delay of repair action level is defined as either a total strippable 
hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas of 62 ppmv 
or a total strippable hydrocarbon concentration in the cooling water of 
800 ppbw. If the repair action level is exceeded as specified under the 
referencing subpart or this paragraph, and unless specified otherwise 
in the referencing subpart, you may delay the repair of a leaking heat 
exchanger when

[[Page 978]]

one of the conditions in paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section is 
met. You must determine if a delay of repair is necessary as soon as 
practicable, but no later than 45 days after first identifying the 
leak.
    (1) If the repair is technically infeasible without a shutdown and 
the total strippable hydrocarbon concentration is initially and remains 
less than the delay of repair action level for all monitoring periods 
during the delay of repair, you may delay repair until the next 
scheduled shutdown of the heat exchange system. If, during subsequent 
monitoring, the total strippable hydrocarbon concentration is equal to 
or greater than the delay of repair action level, you must repair the 
leak within 30 days of the monitoring event in which the total 
strippable hydrocarbon was equal to or exceeded the delay of repair 
action level.
    (2) If the necessary equipment, parts, or personnel are not 
available and the total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as 
methane) is initially and remains less than the delay of repair action 
level for all monitoring periods during the delay of repair, you may 
delay the repair for a maximum of 120 calendar days from the day the 
leak was first identified. You must demonstrate that the necessary 
equipment, parts, or personnel were not available. If, during 
subsequent monthly monitoring, the total strippable hydrocarbon 
concentration is equal to or greater than the delay of repair action 
level, you must repair the leak within 30 days of the monitoring event 
in which the leak was equal to or exceeded the total strippable 
hydrocarbon delay of repair action level.
    (g) Unless otherwise specified in the referencing subpart, to delay 
the repair under paragraph (f) of this section, you must record the 
information in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) The reason(s) for delaying repair.
    (2) A schedule for completing the repair as soon as practical.
    (3) The date and concentration of the leak as first identified and 
the results of all subsequent monitoring events during the delay of 
repair.
    (4) An estimate of the potential emissions from the leaking heat 
exchange system following the procedures in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) and 
(ii) of this section.
    (i) Determine the total strippable hydrocarbon concentration in the 
cooling water, in ppbw, using equation 7-1 from ``Air Stripping Method 
(Modified El Paso Method) for Determination of Volatile Organic 
Compound Emissions from Water Sources,'' Revision Number One, dated 
January 2003, Sampling Procedures Manual, Appendix P: Cooling Tower 
Monitoring, prepared by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 
January 31, 2003 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  65.265).
    (ii) Calculate the emissions for the leaking heat exchange system 
by multiplying the hydrocarbon concentration in the cooling water, 
ppbw, by the flow rate of the cooling water at the selected monitoring 
location and by the expected duration of the delay. The flow rate may 
be based on direct measurement, pump curves, heat balance calculations 
or other engineering methods.

Notifications, Reports and Records

Sec.  65.615  What notifications must I submit and when?

    If the referencing subpart requires that a notification of 
compliance status be filed, then, at a minimum, you must include the 
information specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section in the 
notification of compliance status. The notification of compliance 
status shall be transmitted to the EPA's Central Data Exchange by using 
either electronic reporting software available from the EPA or in an 
electronic file format specified by the EPA. The notification of 
compliance status shall also be submitted to the delegated authority in 
the form and/or format specified by the delegated authority. The 
notification of compliance status must be signed by the responsible 
official who shall certify its accuracy, attesting to whether the 
source has complied with the relevant standard.
    (a) The information specified in the referencing subpart.
    (b) Identification of the heat exchange systems that are subject to 
the requirements of the referencing subpart.

Sec.  65.620  What reports must I submit and when?

    Unless otherwise specified in the referencing subpart, you must 
report the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this 
section, as applicable, in the periodic report specified in the 
referencing subpart.
    (a) The number of heat exchange systems in regulated material 
service.
    (b) The number of heat exchange systems in regulated material 
service found to be leaking.
    (c) A summary of the monitoring data that indicate a leak, 
including the number of leaks determined to be equal to or greater than 
the leak definitions specified in the referencing subpart.
    (d) If applicable, the date a leak was identified, the date the 
source of the leak was identified and the date of repair.
    (e) If applicable, a summary of each delayed repair, including the 
original date and reason for the delay and the date of repair, if 
repaired during the reporting period.
    (f) If applicable, an estimate of total strippable hydrocarbon 
emissions for each delayed repair over the reporting period.

Sec.  65.625  What records must I keep?

    Unless otherwise specified in the referencing subpart, for a heat 
exchange system subject to the requirements of this subpart, you must 
keep the records specified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this 
section and you must retain these records for 5 years.
    (a) Identification of all heat exchangers at the facility and the 
measured or estimated average annual regulated material concentration 
of process fluid or intervening cooling fluid processed in each heat 
exchanger.
    (b) Identification of all heat exchange systems that are in 
regulated material service. For each heat exchange system that is 
subject to this subpart, you must include identification of all heat 
exchangers within each heat exchange system, identification of the 
individual heat exchangers in regulated material service within each 
heat exchange system and for closed-loop recirculation systems, the 
cooling tower included in each heat exchange system.
    (c) Identification of all heat exchange systems that are exempt 
from the monitoring requirements according to the provisions in Sec.  
65.610(b) and the provision under which the heat exchange system is 
exempt.
    (d) Results of the following monitoring data for each monitoring 
event:
    (1) Date/time of event.
    (2) Heat exchange exit line flow or cooling tower return line flow 
at the sampling location, gallons/minute.
    (3) Monitoring method employed.
    (4) If the ``Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for 
Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water 
Sources'' Revision Number One, dated January 2003, Sampling Procedures 
Manual, Appendix P: Cooling Tower Monitoring, prepared by Texas 
Commission on Environmental Quality, January 31, 2003 (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  65.265) is used according to Sec.  
65.610(a)(3)(i):
    (i) Barometric pressure.
    (ii) El Paso air stripping apparatus water flow milliliter/minute 
(ml/min) and air flow, ml/min, and air temperature, [deg]Celsius.

[[Page 979]]

    (iii) FID reading (ppmv).
    (iv) Length of sampling period.
    (v) Sample volume.
    (vi) Calibration information identified in Section 5.4.2 of the 
``Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for Determination of 
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water Sources'' Revision 
Number One, dated January 2003, Sampling Procedures Manual, Appendix P: 
Cooling Tower Monitoring, prepared by Texas Commission on Environmental 
Quality, January 31, 2003 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  
65.265).
    (5) If SW-846 Methods 5030B and 8260C or ASTM Method D5790-95 is 
used according to Sec.  65.610(a)(3)(ii):
    (i) The type of detector used.
    (ii) The list of target analytes.
    (iii) The measured cooling water concentration for each of target 
analyte (ppbw).
    (iv) The method detection limit for each analyte.
    (v) Calibration and surrogate recovery information identified in 
the corresponding method.
    (6) If an alternative method is used according to Sec.  
65.610(a)(3)(iii):
    (i) Specific citation for the test method used.
    (ii) Analysis technique.
    (iii) The list of target analytes.
    (iv) The measured cooling water concentration for each of target 
analyte (ppbw).
    (v) Calibration and surrogate recovery information identified in 
test method used.
    (vi) Other records regarding the monitoring method or results as 
specified in the referencing subpart.
    (e) The date when a leak was identified and the date when the heat 
exchanger was repaired or taken out of service.
    (f) If a repair is delayed, the reason for the delay, the schedule 
for completing the repair and the estimate of potential emissions for 
the delay of repair.

Other Requirements and Information

Sec.  65.630  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    The General Provisions applicable to the referencing subpart apply 
to this subpart as specified in the referencing subpart. The provisions 
of subpart H of this part (General Provisions--Uniform Standards) also 
apply to this subpart. The provisions of subpart A of this part 
(General Provisions--Consolidated Federal Air Rule) do not apply to 
this subpart.

Sec.  65.635  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If the EPA Administrator has 
delegated authority to a state, local or tribal agency, then that 
agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. Contact 
the applicable EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is 
delegated to a state, local or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a state, local or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) 
of this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not 
transferred to the state, local or tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in Sec.  65.610, 
under Sec.  63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of major changes to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90 and as required in 
this subpart.
    (3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f) and 
as defined in Sec.  63.90 and as required in this subpart.
    (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under 
Sec.  63.10(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90 and as required in this 
subpart.

Sec.  65.640  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    All terms used in this subpart shall have the meaning given them in 
the Clean Air Act and in this section.
    Cooling tower means a heat removal device used to remove the heat 
absorbed in circulating cooling water systems by transferring the heat 
to the atmosphere using natural or mechanical draft.
    Cooling tower return line means the main water trunk lines at the 
inlet to the cooling tower before exposure to the atmosphere.
    Heat exchange system means a device or collection of devices used 
to transfer heat from process fluids to water without intentional 
direct contact of the process fluid with the water (i.e., non-contact 
heat exchanger) and to transport and/or cool the water in a closed-loop 
recirculation system (cooling tower system) or a once-through system 
(e.g., river or pond water). For closed-loop recirculation systems, the 
heat exchange system consists of a cooling tower, all heat exchangers 
that are serviced by that cooling tower and all water lines to and from 
the heat exchanger(s). For once-through systems, the heat exchange 
system consists of one or more heat exchangers servicing an individual 
process unit and all water lines to and from the heat exchanger(s). 
Intentional direct contact with process fluids results in the formation 
of a wastewater.
    Heat exchanger exit line means the cooling water line from the exit 
of one or more heat exchangers (where cooling water leaves the heat 
exchangers) to either the entrance of the cooling tower return line or 
prior to exposure to the atmosphere or mixing with non-cooling water 
streams, in, as an example, a once-through cooling system, whichever 
occurs first.
    In regulated material service means, unless specified otherwise in 
the referencing subpart, a heat exchanger that either contains or 
contacts a fluid (liquid or gas) that is at least 5 percent by weight 
of regulated material (as defined in the referencing subpart) as 
determined according to the provisions of Sec.  65.270 of this part.

[FR Doc. 2011-31530 Filed 1-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P