[Federal Register: October 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 207)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55669-55692]
[DOCID:fr28oc09-15]

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

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 9 and 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum
Refineries; Final Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146; FRL-8972-4]
RIN 2060-AO55

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Petroleum Refineries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the national emission standards for
petroleum refineries to add maximum achievable control technology
standards for heat exchange systems. This action also amends the
general provisions cross-reference table and corrects section
references.

DATES: The final amendments are effective on October 28, 2009. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the final
rule amendments is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 28, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146. All documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential
business information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Lucas, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number
(919) 541-0884; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information
III. Summary of the Final Amendments to NESHAP for Petroleum
Refineries and Changes Since Proposal
    A. What requirements for heat exchange systems are we
promulgating pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2)?
    B. What other revisions and clarifications are we making?
    C. What is the compliance schedule for the final amendments?
IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Heat Exchange Systems
    B. General Provisions Applicability
V. Summary of Impacts
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   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 regulated by this
final rule. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40
CFR 63.640 of subpart CC (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries). If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
contact either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA
regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General
Provisions).

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web through
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of
this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page
for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by December 28, 2009. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an
objection to these final rules that was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA also provides a mechanism for us to
convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an
objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise
such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds
for such objection

arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room
3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460, with a copy to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code
2344A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background Information

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a regulatory process to address
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources.
After EPA has identified categories of sources emitting one or more of
the HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) calls for
us to promulgate national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) for those sources. For ``major sources'' that emit
or have the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or
more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more
per year, these 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'').
    In developing this rule, we first issued an advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on March 29, 2007. The purpose of the ANPR,
which covered the sources subject to the Refinery MACT 1 rule and other
source categories, was to solicit additional emissions data and any
corrections to the data we already had. We issued an initial proposed
rule for the petroleum refineries subject to the Refinery MACT 1 on
September 4, 2007, and held a public hearing in Houston, Texas, on
November 27, 2007. In response to public comments on the initial
proposal, we collected additional information and revised our analysis
of the MACT floor. Based on the results of these additional analyses,
we issued a supplemental proposal on November 10, 2008, that
established a new MACT floor for heat exchange systems. A public
hearing for the supplemental proposal was held in Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, on November 25, 2008. We are now taking final
action to establish standards for heat exchange systems in the Refinery
MACT 1 standards (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) and to update and amend
Table 6 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We were also required by a Consent Decree to consider and
address the application of the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart A to the existing Refinery MACT 1 rule (subpart
CC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Final Amendments to NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries and
Changes Since Proposal

A. What requirements for heat exchange systems are we promulgating
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2)?

    On September 4, 2007, we proposed, under CAA section 112(d)(2), two
options for work practice standards for cooling towers: Option 1 was
proposed based on our initial assessment of the MACT floor and Option 2
was a beyond-the-floor option. These options would require the owner or
operator of a new or existing source to monitor for leaks in the
cooling tower return lines from heat exchangers in organic HAP service
(i.e., lines that contain or contact fluids with 5 percent by weight or
greater of total organic HAP listed in Table 1 of the rule) and, where
leaks are detected, to repair such leaks within a specified period of
time.
    On November 10, 2008, we issued a supplemental proposal that
significantly modified the proposed monitoring methods, leak
definitions, and corrective action timeframe based on a revised MACT
floor and beyond-the-floor analysis. In the supplemental proposal, we
also redefined the requirements in terms of heat exchange systems to
include the heat exchangers, for which corrective actions are targeted,
as part of the source and to specifically address once-through cooling
systems.
    After considering public comments, for purposes of establishing
MACT under CAA section 112(d)(2), we have selected the MACT floor
requirements specified in the supplemental proposal for heat exchange
systems in organic HAP service at petroleum refineries. We rejected the
beyond-the-floor option because it is not cost-effective.
    Under these selected requirements, owners and operators of heat
exchange systems that are in organic HAP service at new and existing
sources are required to conduct monthly sampling and analyses using the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ) Modified El Paso
Method, Revision Number One, dated January 2003.\2\ For existing
sources, a leak is defined as 6.2 parts per million by volume (ppmv)
total strippable volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the stripping gas
collected via the Modified El Paso Method. For new sources, a leak is
defined as 3.1 ppmv total strippable VOC collected via the Modified El
Paso Method. The amendments require the repair of leaks in heat
exchangers in organic HAP service within 45 days of the sampling event
in which the leak is detected, unless a delay in repair is allowed.
Delay in repair of the leak is allowed until the next shutdown if the
repair of the leak requires the process unit served by the leaking heat
exchanger to be shut down and the total strippable VOC concentration is
less than 62 ppmv. Delay in repair of the leak is also allowed for up
to 120 days

if the total strippable VOC concentration is less than 62 ppmv and if
critical parts or personnel are not available. The owner or operator is
required to continue monthly monitoring and to repair the heat
exchanger within 30 days if sampling results show that the leak exceeds
62 ppmv total strippable VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for
Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water
Sources,'' Revision Number One, dated January 2003, Sampling
Procedures Manual, Appendix P: Cooling Tower Monitoring, prepared by
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, January 31, 2003
(incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sampling for leaks can be done for individual or combined heat
exchangers. For heat exchange systems including a cooling tower,
sampling can be conducted at the combined cooling tower inlet water
location. Similarly, for once-through heat exchange systems, the
sampling can be conducted after the heat exchanger water is combined
and prior to discharge where it will be open to atmosphere. For both
cooling tower and once-through heat exchange systems, sampling can be
conducted at individual heat exchangers in the return or ``exit'' lines
(i.e., water lines returning the water from the heat exchangers to the
cooling tower or to the discharge point). That is, if the cooling tower
or once-through system services multiple heat exchangers, the owner or
operator may elect to monitor only the heat exchangers ``in organic HAP
service'' or monitor at branch points that combine several heat
exchanger exit lines, or monitor at the combined stream for the entire
system. If a leak is detected (the measured VOC concentration exceeds
the applicable leak definition) at the combined cooling tower inlet or
once-through system, the owner or operator may either fix the leak
(reduce the VOC concentration to less than the applicable leak
definition) or sample heat exchanger exit lines for combinations of
heat exchanger exit lines or sample each heat exchanger ``in organic
HAP service'' as necessary to document that the leak is not originating
from a heat exchanger ``in organic HAP service.'' If a leak is detected
in an individual heat exchanger ``in organic HAP service,'' that leak
must be repaired.
    All new or existing refineries with a heat exchange system ``in
organic HAP service'' are required to maintain records of all heat
exchangers and which of those heat exchangers are in organic HAP
service, the cooling towers and once-through systems associated with
heat exchangers in organic HAP service, monthly monitoring results, and
information for any delays in repair of a leak.
    These requirements will apply to sources on a continuous basis,
including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). As
provided in the response to comments below, properly operating heat
exchangers will not leak HAP into the cooling water, so HAP will not be
emitted from the cooling tower or once-through discharges. It is only
when they malfunction (i.e., there are leaks) that there may be HAP
emissions. The MACT standard for heat exchange units addresses these
emissions. Furthermore, there are no HAP emissions associated with
start-up and shutdown.
    The requirements outlined above are based on the MACT floor
determination. We evaluated the following beyond-the-floor options:
having a leak definition of 3.1 ppmv for existing sources (beyond-the-
floor option for existing sources) and requiring continuous monitoring
(beyond-the-floor options for both new and existing sources). As
described in our supplemental proposal, we determined that these
beyond-the-floor options were not cost-effective and concluded that
MACT was the floor level of control.
    The final MACT requirements for heat exchange systems will reduce
HAP emissions by 630 tons per year (ton/yr). The final requirements for
heat exchange systems will also reduce VOC emissions by 4,100 ton/yr.
Reducing VOC emissions may provide the added benefit of reducing
ambient concentrations of ozone and may reduce fine particulate matter.
The annualized nationwide cost impacts of these final standards for
heat exchange systems are estimated to be $3.0 million. Our economic
analysis indicates that this cost will have little impact on the price
and output of petroleum products.

B. What other revisions and clarifications are we making?

    As proposed, we are amending 40 CFR 63.650(a) of subpart CC to
replace ``gasoline loading racks'' with ``Group 1 gasoline loading
racks'' to clarify the applicability of the requirements. Furthermore,
as we proposed on November 10, 2008, we are also finalizing proposed
amendments to the cross-references to subparts R and Y of 40 CFR part
63 in the rule text and in Tables 4 and 5 of subpart CC because
subparts R and Y were amended and the revised cross-references clarify
the requirements of subpart CC.
    We are finalizing amendments to Table 6 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CC (General Provisions Applicability to Subpart CC) to bring the table
up-to-date with requirements of the General Provisions that have been
amended since this table was created, to correct cross-references, and
to incorporate additional sections of the General Provisions that are
necessary to implement other subparts that are cross-referenced by this
rule. With respect to the exemption from emission standards during
periods of SSM in the General Provisions (see, e.g., 40 CFR 63.6(f) and
(h)), we note that on December 19, 2008, in a decision addressing a
challenge to the 2002, 2004, and 2006 amendments to those provisions,
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the
SSM exemption. Sierra Club v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 02-1135).
    The CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) MACT standard we are promulgating
today for heat exchange systems is not implicated by that decision
because it does not rely on or reference the provisions of the vacated
rule and because the MACT standard applies at all times. We are
amending Table 6 to clarify that the MACT standard for heat exchange
systems applies at all times.
    We are still evaluating the recent court decision. At this time, we
are not making any additional changes to Table 6 with respect to the
SSM provisions in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). We have completed our
initial assessment of the General Provisions and their application to
subpart CC of part 63. The recent court decision requires further
analysis, and we are currently evaluating how to address SSM events for
Refinery MACT 1 sources in light of the court decision.
    We are also finalizing amendments to Table 1 and Table 7 to delete
methyl ethyl ketone (also known as 2-butanone) from the HAP listed in
those tables because methyl ethyl ketone has been delisted as a HAP. We
are finalizing amendments to clarify the applicability sections by
changing general references to ``the promulgation date'' to specify the
actual promulgation date of the original subpart CC of part 63.
Finally, we are also finalizing amendments to clarify how owners and
operators should comply with overlapping standards for equipment leaks.

C. What is the compliance schedule for the final amendments?

    The final amendments to the Refinery MACT 1 rule will be effective
on October 28, 2009. Under section 112(i)(1) of the CAA, any new
facility must comply upon startup or on the effective date of the rule,
whichever is later. For purposes of determining compliance with these
amendments, a new source is a source that commenced construction or
reconstruction after September 4, 2007 (the initial date of proposal
for these regulations). Consistent with the requirements of CAA section
112(1)(3), the owner or operator of an existing source (including an
existing source for these amendments that is currently subject to 1995
Refinery MACT 1 standards for new sources) must comply with the heat
exchange system requirements no later than

October 29, 2012. The basis for the 3-year compliance period is set
forth below in our responses to comment.

IV. Summary of Comments and Responses

    This preamble and the document ``National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries: Background
Information for Final Standards for Heat Exchange Systems--Summary of
Public Comments and Responses'' (``Response to Comments'') located in
the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146) include only comment
summaries and responses to issues related to heat exchange systems and
other clarifying amendments. The major comments on those issues and our
responses are summarized in the following sections. A summary of the
remainder of the comments and responses related to those issues can be
found in the Response to Comments document.
    Comments regarding other issues raised as a result of the proposed
and supplemental proposed rules are not included in this preamble or
the Response to Comments document; they will be addressed, as
appropriate, in future rulemakings addressing the residual risk and
technology reviews for Refinery MACT 1.

A. Heat Exchange Systems

    On November 10, 2008, we issued a supplemental proposal with our
revised MACT floor and beyond-the-floor analysis. In general, the
comments received on the cooling tower requirements initially proposed
on September 4, 2007, either have been addressed through the
supplemental proposal or are not applicable to the final standards
(e.g., clarifications to monitoring methods no longer required). Any
general comments regarding cooling tower requirements received on the
initial proposal that are still applicable are summarized in the
Response to Comments document located in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2003-0146). Significant comments received on the supplemental
proposal are addressed in this section.
1. MACT Floor for Heat Exchange Systems
    Comment: A few commenters noted that the leak definition proposed
for new heat exchange systems of 3.1 ppmv has not been ``demonstrated
in practice.'' One commenter stated that the leak definition of 3.1
ppmv was developed by the State of Texas from the AP-42 emission
factor. The commenter stated that only one cooling tower is operating
under a permit with that limit (the other cooling towers are under
construction), and this cooling tower has only recently begun
operating, so there is no significant experience operating with the
identified new source limit or applying it to the range of operations
and ages of exchangers in a typical refinery. The commenter asserted
that some heat exchangers and heat exchange systems are difficult to
control, and different leak definitions are appropriate for different
situations within an individual refinery, so a set of requirements must
be demonstrated to be workable on multiple heat exchange systems of
varying services and ages before that set of requirements can be
considered ``demonstrated in practice.'' Another commenter stated that
there is no demonstration that there is technology that can be applied
to new sources that improves the emission performance of these systems
when considered across the operating life of the facilities. Both
commenters recommended setting the new source and existing source
requirements equivalent at 6.2 ppmv. (One of the commenters noted that
EPA's analysis shows that the next best controlled source has a limit
of 5 ppmv, but the commenter noted that there is not much difference
between the reductions achieved by a leak definition of 5 ppmv and a
leak definition of 6.2, and 5 ppmv is not cost-effective. The commenter
urged EPA to review cooling towers and heat exchange systems under CAA
sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) and consider factors such as cost
rather than developing a standard under CAA section 112(d)(2).)
    One commenter noted that in the State of Texas, if a particular
cooling tower cannot meet its normal leak definition of 80 parts per
billion by weight (ppbw) VOC in the water, the State allows that source
to set a leak definition of up to 150 ppbw VOC in the water. For
flexibility when dealing with continuous small seepage or situations
where the particular HAP or VOC present are not completely stripped by
the cooling tower, the commenter suggested that in any 1-year period,
if monitoring shows three leaks above 6.2 ppmv, but below 12 ppmv, EPA
should allow that source to set a new leak definition of 12 ppmv.
    Commenters stated that the leak definition of 6.2 ppmv VOC in the
stripping gas is not stringent enough. One commenter noted that during
cooling tower leak investigations conducted by the City of Houston and
TCEQ, a potential leak measured at 2 ppm required sampling by summa
canister to confirm the leak, and EPA's regulation should be at least
that stringent. The commenter stated that a stringent leak threshold of
2 ppm will ensure that small leaks are found and repaired quickly,
especially since the TCEQ leak threshold is 50 parts per billion by
volume (ppbv).
    Several commenters supported using the Modified El Paso Method to
detect leaks but suggested that cooling towers that have higher
recirculation flow rates should have lower leak definitions than
cooling towers with lower flows because the large cooling towers will
have higher mass emissions at the same leak concentration.
    Commenters stated that EPA failed to consider the TCEQ Highly
Reactive VOC (HRVOC) rule in establishing the MACT floor. The
commenters believe the HRVOC rule is applicable to several refinery
cooling towers, requires continuous monitoring, and it has a more
stringent leak definition and leak repair schedule. One commenter also
cited a California refinery that is required to install and operate a
continuous hydrocarbon analyzer and repair leaks above an agreed
threshold.
    Response: The TCEQ El Paso Method has been demonstrated at numerous
refineries and other similar sources as an effective means of
identifying leaks in heat exchange systems. The method has been used
extensively for over 20 years. As suggested by some commenters, the
detection limit of the El Paso Method is generally less than 2 ppmv, so
leaks of 3.1 ppmv are quantifiable. Ongoing monitoring at refineries
indicates that, when no leaks are present or after repairs are made, El
Paso monitoring is able to detect leaks well below this leak threshold.
As such, the monitoring method and the corrective action measures have
been adequately demonstrated.
    In criticizing our new source leak definition of 3.1 ppmv, the
commenter recognizes that heat exchangers connected to one refinery
cooling tower are subject to a monitoring program with a leak
definition of 3.1 ppmv. Section 112(d)(3) of the CAA provides that new
source MACT cannot be less stringent than ``the emission control that
is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source.'' The
commenter's concern that the facility has only recently begun operation
and that there is not ``significant'' experience with the leak
definition of 3.1 ppmv does not change the fact that this level is
being achieved in practice and thus is the appropriate new source MACT
floor. To the extent that the commenter suggests that the cooling
towers meeting this limit are different and thus is presumably arguing
that they must be subcategorized, the

commenter failed to submit any data supporting such a claim. As one
commenter suggested, we cannot set the new source limit at 6.2 ppmv
because we are establishing these requirements under CAA section
112(d)(2), and we cannot consider cost in setting the MACT floor. The
requirements for heat exchange systems are appropriately developed
under CAA section 112(d)(2) because a MACT standard had not been
previously developed for this emissions source.
    One commenter noted that the TCEQ allows some discretion in setting
the total strippable VOC concentration limit or altering the limit
based on the performance history of the cooling tower. We do recognize
that the cooling tower leak definitions for total strippable VOC
required in Texas refinery permits varied from 40 ppbw (or 3.1 ppmv) to
280 ppbw (22 ppmv), including within this range leak definitions at 60
ppbw, 80 ppbw, 150 ppbw, and 180 ppbw, but the 6th percentile facility
had a leak definition of 80 ppbw, or 6.2 ppmv total strippable organics
as methane. While some permits issued by TCEQ contain language that
allows an alteration request or a permit amendment application, as the
commenter noted, the permit issued for the 6th percentile cooling tower
did not include this type of permit condition. As we cannot establish a
requirement less stringent than the MACT floor, we do not provide a 12
ppmv leak definition under any circumstances.
    Most of the commenters requesting lower leak definitions appear to
misunderstand the stringency of the requirements for heat exchange
systems included in the supplemental proposal. Based on the liquid and
air flow rates specified in the TCEQ El Paso Method, and with the VOC
measurements made as methane as required in the State permits and the
supplemental proposal, a 3.1 ppmv VOC concentration in the gas stream
from the El Paso stripping column is equivalent to 40 ppbw of
strippable VOC (as methane) in the cooling water. The 6.2 ppmv leak
threshold translates to a strippable VOC (as methane) in the cooling
water of 80 ppbw.
    The TCEQ HRVOC rule sets an action level that is 50 ppbw in the
cooling water, not 50 ppbv in the stripping air as the commenter
suggested. As such, the TCEQ HRVOC rule action level is actually
slightly less stringent than the leak definition in the new source MACT
requirements. Furthermore, the 50 ppbw threshold only triggers
calculations of emissions, and not necessarily corrective action.
Therefore, we disagree with commenters that suggest the HRVOC rule
requirements are more stringent than the new or existing MACT floor
requirements we established.
    In our supplemental proposal, we specifically looked at lowering
the leak definition for existing sources from 6.2 ppmv to 3.1 ppmv as
part of our beyond-the-floor analysis, and determined that this was not
cost-effective. Incrementally reducing the leak definition to 2 ppmv
would be even less cost-effective than the option we evaluated.
Furthermore, it would result in negligible additional emissions
reductions, and it is very near the limit of detection of the El Paso
Method. Therefore, we reject the option of setting the leak definition
at 2 ppmv for new or existing sources because it is not cost-effective.
    The commenter requesting different leak definitions for different-
sized cooling towers is essentially asking for less control for small
cooling towers (i.e., an effective leak definition greater than 6.2
ppmv) and more control for larger cooling towers (i.e., an effective
leak definition less than 6.2 ppmv, and in some cases less than 3.1
ppmv). In our review of permits, we found no basis for subcategorizing
the cooling towers by different recirculation rates. In addition, the
suggested approach is inconsistent with the MACT floor requirements we
identified for heat exchange systems.
    We also disagree with the comments that claim we did not consider
the HRVOC rule in our decision-making process. We found that most
cooling towers that are subject to the HRVOC rule are associated with
ethylene production units, and not refinery process units. As we
specifically collected recent permit requirements for Texas refineries,
to the extent there might be refinery cooling towers subject to the
HRVOC rule, those requirements were considered in the development of
the MACT floor. As explained above, we also disagree with the
commenter's characterization of the stringency of the HRVOC rule in
comparison with the new and existing MACT floors.
    Our analysis indicated that repair provisions were more important
in reducing heat exchange system emissions than using continuous
monitoring. Contrary to the commenter's supposition, there are no
repair schedules within the HRVOC cooling tower requirements. The
commenter actually referenced the repair provisions for fugitive
process equipment leaks (valves and pumps), which are not applicable to
cooling towers. In the HRVOC rule, the action level is not a leak
definition; rather, the leak definition is used to trigger more
frequent monitoring for emission estimation and not specific repair
requirements. In the HRVOC rules, facilities with cooling towers must
meet an annual and an hourly site-wide HRVOC emissions cap. The hourly
cap is quite high, and would not require any heat exchanger leaks to be
repaired; the annual cap would tend to drive heat exchanger repairs. A
medium-sized 30,000 gallon per minute cooling tower with a leak of
1,000 ppbw total VOC containing 20 percent HRVOC (as defined in the
Texas rule) would have to repair within 45 days under the MACT floor
requirements of this rule, but would not necessarily have to repair in
45 days to comply with the HRVOC rule, which sets a site-wide cap of 10
ton/yr (45 days of emissions would release 1.6 tons of HRVOC, under
this scenario).
    While different scenarios can be devised, the stringency of the
Texas HRVOC rule is not as easy to categorize as the commenters
suggest, and it could result in less emission reductions than the
proposed new or existing source MACT floors.
    Contrary to the commenter's assertion, we also reviewed and
evaluated the permit requirements for the cited California refinery,
and the permit was included in the docket. The permit, dated April 17,
2008, included a provision for a continuous monitor to be installed at
a future date, to be determined, and the planned monitor was not being
used at the time of our review. Additionally, based on the cooling
tower's recirculation rate and the permitted VOC daily emission rate,
the apparent action level (also not yet determined) is likely to be
much higher than the leak definition for existing source MACT floors.
In the cooling tower memorandum, we only summarized the information
from the top-ranked cooling towers; the cooling tower at this
California refinery was not included in the memorandum because, based
on actual permit conditions, this cooling tower is not among the top-
performing 12 percent of cooling towers.
    While continuous monitoring was not used by the top-performing
cooling towers, and, therefore, is not part of the floor requirements,
we did evaluate requiring continuous monitoring in our beyond-the-floor
analysis. However, the cost-effectiveness of this option exceeded half
a million dollars per ton of HAP reduced, and, therefore, we did not
require continuous monitoring as the standard. Rather, we adopted the
floor as the MACT standard.

    Comment: One commenter noted that the proposed recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for heat exchange systems are unnecessarily
burdensome, go far beyond the requirements for the MACT floor, and
should be revised. For the Notice of Compliance Status, the commenter
noted that ``heat exchange systems'' are an artifact of the regulation,
do not normally have specific names, and will change from time to time,
so the requirement to identify the heat exchange systems that are
subject to the requirements of this subpart should be changed to a list
of cooling towers that serve any heat exchange system or systems in
organic HAP service. For periodic reports, the commenter stated that:
(1) The number of heat exchange systems in HAP service will change over
time, so the requirement to report that number should be deleted; (2)
the requirement to report the number of heat exchange systems in HAP
service found to be leaking should be changed to a request to identify
exchangers found to be leaking; (3) the requirement to report the
number of leaks in Sec.  63.655(g)(9)(iii) duplicates the requirement
in Sec.  63.655(g)(9)(ii); (4) Sec.  63.655(g)(9)(iii) should not
require the reporting of measurements below the leak definition and
should only ask for a summary of the leaks identified during the
reporting period; (5) each 6-month period will include a lot of leaks,
so there is no need to report the date of every leak (a record should
be sufficient); (6) Sec.  63.655(g)(9)(v) should be revised to reflect
all delays and to address situations when a leak is detected in one
reporting period and repaired in the next; and (7) reporting the
estimate of VOC emissions for delay of repair should only be required
when the delay of repair option was invoked. For recordkeeping, the
commenter stated that: (1) Calculating the requested information for
each heat exchanger in a refinery will take an estimated 40 hours per
refinery and must be repeated every year; these burdens were not
included in the information collection request (ICR) burden estimate
and do not add value for exchangers that will not be monitored due to
low HAP content, that do not contact HAP, or would not leak into the
cooling water; (2) although sources will need a record of which heat
exchange systems include exchangers in organic HAP service to comply
with the monitoring requirements, identification of all heat exchangers
is not necessary; and (3) the information requested in Sec.
63.655(i)(4)(iii)(E) is sometimes available for whole cooling towers
but not readily available for heat exchange exit lines or cooling tower
return lines. The commenter stated that temporary heat exchangers and
sample coolers should be excluded from these recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
    Response: We reviewed the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
identified by the commenter. We do not see how the heat exchange system
will be as variable as the commenter suggested. We have revised the
definition of heat exchange system to clarify our intent. We also: (1)
Amended Sec.  63.655(g)(9)(v) to more clearly indicate that all delayed
repairs must be included and that delays may occur across reporting
periods; (2) amended the reporting requirements in Sec.
63.655(g)(9)(vi) to clarify that leak emission estimates are only
required for an actual delay of repair; and (3) clarified in Sec.
63.655(g)(9)(vi) that the flow rate is for the location where the
monitoring occurs. It is anticipated that facilities will monitor at
locations where the flow rate is known based on pump curves, heat
balance calculations, or other engineering methods. A continuous flow
monitor is not required, but a flow rate at the monitoring location is
needed to assess the potential mass emissions associated with a leak.
For the other comments, we find that the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are needed to document compliance with the rule.
Specifically, identifying heat exchangers and heat exchange systems
that are in organic HAP service, maintaining monitoring results, and
reporting the date a leak is identified and repaired is essential for
demonstrating compliance with the monitoring requirements.
2. Applicability Issues
    Comment: One commenter supported changing the affected source from
``cooling towers'' to ``heat exchange systems,'' noting that it allows
the facilities flexibility in monthly monitoring, leak tracking, and
determining best sampling locations. Other commenters stated that
Refinery MACT 1 should only apply to heat exchange systems that are
part of cooling tower systems and should not apply to once-through
cooling water systems. The commenters suggested that the supporting
documentation indicates that only cooling tower heat exchange systems
were evaluated, and, if EPA wants to finalize requirements for once-
through cooling water systems, the requirements must be properly
evaluated and the analyses provided for comment. One commenter stated
that the emissions from once-through cooling systems are fundamentally
different than systems with cooling towers since once-through systems
do not have the air contact and stripping properties of cooling towers,
and, as a result, a cost analysis of the two systems would show
considerably different costs. The commenter also noted that the
monitoring and repair techniques employed for the once-through systems
are different than the monitoring for cooling tower systems, and these
techniques should be evaluated for best demonstrated control technology
(BDT) if once-through cooling systems are included in the rule. One
commenter noted that, as proposed, the heat exchange system
requirements apply to systems where the pressure gradient would not
allow leakage into the cooling water. The commenter noted that these
systems do not need monitoring, and a pressure gradient threshold of 35
kilopascals (kPa) should be included in the definition of ``heat
exchange system'' to exempt these types of systems from Refinery MACT
1. Finally, the commenter stated that including the term ``cooling
tower'' in the definition of ``heat exchange system'' could lead to
confusion over the monitoring location requirements.
    Response: EPA has developed MACT standards, such as the Hazardous
Organic NESHAP (HON) and Ethylene MACT, for heat exchange systems, and
these standards include once-through cooling water systems. Generally,
the HON and Ethylene MACT standards allow alternative surrogate means
of compliance that are equivalent to those standards. We considered and
rejected these alternatives in the development of the requirements that
we proposed for heat exchange systems and that we are now finalizing
because the HON and Ethylene MACT standards are less stringent than our
floor. We are not aware of any means of surrogate monitoring that would
achieve identification of leaks equivalent to the floor level of
monitoring required for refinery heat exchange systems.
    We believe that control of once-through heat exchanger cooling
systems is appropriate for several reasons, as outlined below. First,
emissions of volatile HAP such as benzene occur readily from open water
sources, which is why the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP and the
Refinery MACT 1 wastewater provisions require wastewater streams with
benzene (as a surrogate for volatile HAP) to be covered and controlled
until an appropriate treatment process is used to recover or destroy
the benzene. While the stripping process may not be as fast as in a
cooling tower, the once-through cooling

water will have a much longer exposure to the atmosphere than a system
with a cooling tower. Thus, while the emissions may occur over a longer
time period (over a larger area), all available scientific evidence and
fate modeling studies of open water systems leads us to conclude that
essentially all volatile HAP will be released into the atmosphere. As
such, we see no reason why HAP leaks from heat exchange systems into
once-through cooling water should be treated any differently than HAP
leaks from heat exchange systems that have cooling towers.
    Second, in conducting the MACT floor analysis for heat exchange
systems presented in the supplemental proposal, we assumed that once-
through cooling waters were included and that emissions from the once-
through systems would be similar to those with recirculation of cooling
waters. In reviewing the permits that formed the basis of the MACT
floor analysis, we found that the majority did not indicate whether the
system was once-through or recirculating. However, we note that some
permits included text for monitoring of ``cooling towers'' and
``cooling tower water'' and some specified monitoring for ``heat
exchanger system cooling water.'' The latter permits would appear to
include once-through systems. Based on review of multiple references,
the use of once-through cooling water in the petroleum refinery
industry has been declining over the last 40 years, and is now a very
small subset of the heat exchanger water systems. One reference
indicated that a sample of facilities surveyed back in 1967 showed that
only 5 percent of petroleum refineries were still using once-through
cooling.\3\ No more recent data could be found on how many refineries
use once-through systems. A more recent study on once-through cooling
systems for cogeneration facilities indicated that approximately 11
percent of non-utility plants that cogenerated power use once-through
cooling; the 123 non-utility facilities included pulp and paper,
chemical, iron and steel, aluminum, and petroleum refining
industries.\4\ Of the 123 facilities in the survey, four were confirmed
petroleum refineries and three of these four sources provided a
response to the survey. None of the three reported that once-through
cooling systems were used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Gibbons, DC. The Economic Value of Water. Published by
Resources for the Future. 1986.
    \4\ Veil, J., M. Pruder, D. Littleton, and D. Moses. ``Cooling
Water Use Patterns at U.S. Nonutility Electric Generating
Facilities.'' Environmental Science and Policy. 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hypothetically, if we assumed that there were additional once-
through cooling systems that were not included in our MACT floor
analysis, we could assume that approximately 5 to 11 percent of the
total cooling systems were once-through. The original number of cooling
tower systems included in the MACT floor analysis was 520. If we assume
that 5 to 11 percent of the cooling systems are once-through systems,
then the total hypothetical number of cooling systems could range from
547 to 584 cooling systems. The MACT floor for these cooling systems
would be based on the average emissions limitations achieved by the top
12 percent of cooling systems; the 6th percentile would be represented
by the 33rd and the 35th cooling systems, respectively, for the
hypothetical total number of cooling systems estimated to be 547 and
584. There would be no change in the MACT floor for existing sources
for this hypothetical case. The MACT floor would be identical to the
requirements in the supplemental proposal, i.e., the 33rd and 35th
ranked cooling systems have requirements to implement corrective action
and heat exchange leak repairs when the strippable total VOC
concentration in stripped air exceeds 6.2 ppmv. The owner or operator
must identify the leaking heat exchanger, and repair at the earliest
opportunity and no later than the next scheduled shutdown.
    To the extent the commenters are suggesting that once-through
systems should be treated as a separate subcategory, they have provided
no information to support that subcategorization is appropriate.
    We agree with the commenter and have clarified in Sec.
63.654(b)(1) that the requirements do not apply to heat exchange
systems where the minimum water-side pressure is 35 kPa greater than
the maximum process-side pressure. We have also revised the definition
of ``heat exchange system'' to identify the equipment that is included
for closed-loop recirculation systems (systems with cooling towers), to
identify the equipment that is included in the once-through systems,
and to clarify that once-through systems are also regulated.
Furthermore, definitions are provided for ``cooling tower return line''
and ``heat exchanger exit line'' to clarify the appropriate sampling
locations. Sampling at either location is allowed; for once-through
cooling systems, sampling is allowed at an aggregated location as long
as it is before exposure to the atmosphere. To clarify this
requirement, we have modified the definition of ``heat exchange exit
line'' to be ``the cooling water line from the exit of one or more heat
exchangers (where cooling water leaves the heat exchangers) to either
the entrance of the cooling tower return line or prior to exposure to
the atmosphere, whichever occurs first.''
3. Compliance Schedule for Heat Exchange Systems
    Comment: Several commenters supported the originally proposed
compliance date of 3 years and 90 days. One commenter noted that the
reference to 90 days in CAA section 112(f)(4) has been misread by some
to limit compliance time, but since it is expected that installation of
controls necessitates a longer time to comply, the waiver provisions
should only be considered if EPA set a compliance deadline less than 3
years. Some commenters noted that 18 months should be sufficient for
all new requirements, as industry is already familiar with many of the
processes to be controlled and are already regulating these emissions.
    Several commenters addressed the compliance dates relative to the
supplemental proposal. For new sources, commenters noted that these
requirements will be promulgated only 2 months after they were proposed
in the supplemental proposal, which is inadequate time in which to have
monitors purchased and operating. The commenters asserted that EPA
should provide 1 year for new sources to comply with the standards.
    Commenters specifically noted that although many Texas refiners are
currently familiar with the monitoring methods required for heat
exchange systems, it took years for them to gain that familiarity, and
it will take time for other refiners to learn to perform the methods
efficiently. One commenter noted that when monitoring begins, there
will be an initial period in which multiple repairs are necessary, some
of which may require shutdowns. The commenters recommended that EPA
provide the full 3 years provided by the CAA for compliance with heat
exchange system requirements; this additional time would allow refiners
to become familiar with the monitoring method and to complete initial
repairs during already scheduled shutdowns and turnarounds. Conversely,
several commenters stated that the cooling tower standards should be
implemented in 1 year rather than progressively over 3 years as
proposed in the supplemental proposal. Another commenter stated that
the 18-month compliance schedule for heat exchange systems in the
supplemental proposal is preferable to

the 3-year (and 90 days) compliance schedule in the original proposal.
    Response: As an initial matter, we note that the originally
proposed compliance schedule (i.e., 3 years and 90 days) should not
have included the additional 90 days. Section 112(i)(3) of the CAA
provides that existing sources must comply within ``3 years after the
effective date'' of the standard. With respect to the 18-month
compliance timeframe specified in our supplemental proposal, we agree
that the commenters have made valid points supporting adoption of a 3-
year compliance period instead. The comments that many refineries do
not have experience with the TCEQ El Paso Method is supported by our
review of cooling tower requirements for different States. We believe
that some sources will need up to the full 3 years allowed under CAA
section 112(i)(3) based on the estimated length of time required for
refiners to survey the heat exchangers, identify those in organic HAP
service, install the necessary sampling ports, purchase the Modified El
Paso sampling system, familiarize themselves with the test method, and
provide training to their employees. In addition, refiners will need to
take steps to be prepared to repair leaking heat exchange systems. This
includes performing initial sampling to identify heat exchangers that
are prone to leakage or are in critical service, identify means to
isolate or repair heat exchangers online, and to order and stock
necessary equipment and spare parts.
    With respect to new source requirements, the CAA specifies that
such sources must comply upon start-up or the date of publication of
the final rule, whichever is later. We note that, based on the
definition of an affected source in the Refinery MACT 1 rule, a
construction project significant enough to trigger the new source
provisions is likely to take years to complete, and that any source
undertaking such project has been on notice since our initial proposal
that cooling tower monitoring (or heat exchange system monitoring)
would be required.
4. Delay of Repair Provisions
    Comment: Commenters noted that the new source delay of repair
standards are based on cooling towers that are not yet operational, so
those permit conditions are not ``achieved in practice.'' The
commenters argued that it takes time after startup of new facilities to
determine if new, previously untested requirements are achievable or
whether permit modifications are needed; it is also unknown if Texas
will allow deviations from permit conditions and under what conditions
for heat exchange system repairs. The commenters stated that the new
source delay of repair standards must instead be based on ``Repair and
Delay 2'' as described in Table 1 of EPA's supporting memorandum (which
the commenter thought were the requirements for the existing source
floor).
    One commenter supported the 45-day repair allowance and delay of
repair allowances. Another commenter stated that the maximum delay of
repair should be 60 days because refineries already have 18 months to
comply. Some commenters expressed concern that EPA proposed to disallow
delay of repair for leaks above 62 ppmv after 3 years and noted that
EPA has not demonstrated the rationale for removing that allowance. One
commenter stated that EPA needs to address the situation in which
multiple small leaks occur at multiple heat exchangers and the
cumulative effect at the cooling tower return line is a leak above 62
ppmv. The commenters stated that unplanned shutdowns are expensive and
disruptive, but would be necessary when repair is infeasible without a
shutdown. One commenter requested that EPA allow owners and operators
to request delay of repair on a case-by-case basis when justified.
    Response: The supplemental proposed MACT floor for both new and
existing sources is repair within 45 days for leaks of 62 ppmv or
greater. In establishing the floor, we found that the no delay of
repairs requirement for large leaks has been implemented and required
for 35 cooling towers at numerous facilities. Also, both the top-ranked
and 6th percentile cooling tower had identical requirements excluding
large leaks from delay of repair. As such, this requirement has been
implemented and has been adequately demonstrated and it establishes the
minimum floor requirement. In the supplemental proposal, we proposed to
allow delay of repair for large leaks for the 18 month phase-in of the
repair requirements, which correspond to the ``Repair and Delay 2''
provisions cited by the commenter. However, we have concluded that
these temporary delay of repair provisions were not equivalent to the
requirements for the MACT floor for existing heat exchange systems,
which is why they were only temporary provisions in the supplemental
proposal. Additionally, the 3-year compliance timeframe in the final
rule will allow facilities sufficient time to resolve these initial
problems. As discussed previously, we are now implementing all heat
exchange system requirements for existing sources on the same 3-year
schedule. Upon implementation of the required monitoring provisions, it
is anticipated that leaks will be identified well before they become
large. Thus, while delay of repairs are allowed for small leaks, it is
the refinery owner or operator's responsibility to order necessary
parts and schedule a repair before the leak exceeds the 62 ppmv
threshold. Negligence on the part of the owner or operator regarding
this responsibility is not a reasonable justification for providing
delay of repair provisions for large leaks. Consistent with the
requirements that apply to the units which provided the basis for the
MACT floor, any leak greater than 62 ppmv that is not repaired in the
timelines provided in the rule is a deviation of the standard and
subject to enforcement actions at the discretion of the Agency or
permitting authority.
5. Monitoring Alternatives
    Comment: Commenters noted that the concentration of heavy organic
HAP and water soluble HAP can build up in recirculating cooling tower
systems, and since the El Paso Method involves more vigorous stripping
than occurs in a cooling tower, monitoring might falsely indicate a
leak. The commenters suggested that, as an alternative, sources should
be allowed to use methods they are presently using, including testing
the inlet water to a heat exchange system and using the difference
between the outlet and the inlet to determine if the leak definition is
exceeded. One commenter noted that if once-through cooling systems
continue to be considered affected facilities by EPA, it is important
for the requirements to consider the baseline of HAP (or surrogate VOC)
emissions in the inlet to the system so that facilities are only
responsible for assessing any ``increase'' in the pollutant attributed
to the operating facility, not pollutants in the water basin upstream
of the facility. Another commenter requested that EPA allow owners or
operators to demonstrate that another monitoring method such as a
continuous emission monitoring system or parameter monitoring is
equivalent to the monitoring methods specified for heat exchange
systems. One commenter requested that EPA continue to allow the method
originally proposed as well as a relatively new analytical method for
early detection developed by Baker Petrolite. Another commenter stated
that the El Paso Method measures VOC in the air, and EPA should allow
any monitoring method that has adequate sensitivity to measure 80 ppbw
of

strippable VOC in the water or for a surrogate that can be correlated
to strippable VOC and can be measured at a level that would indicate a
leak of 80 ppbw of strippable VOC in the water for a particular heat
exchange system. This monitoring flexibility would be helpful to
confirm El Paso results as well as more efficient for sources that are
required to conduct other types of monitoring by their State or local
agency or for compliance with another Federal regulation (such as the
HON).
    Response: We acknowledge that some refineries have specific
monitoring systems in-place and that the use of these monitoring
systems would ease the burden on the refinery owner or operator.
However, we are not aware of any practical alternatives that we can
specify that provide an equivalent measure of strippable organics. Nor
have any of the commenters provided evidence that a specific
alternative method would result in an equivalent measure. For example,
we have reviewed the ``method for early detection developed by Baker
Petrolite'' and found that the detection level for most individual
compounds is much higher than the total strippable VOC concentrations
that define a leak for the MACT floor facility. That is, this method
would not be able to identify small to medium-sized leaks that would be
identified and would be required to be fixed by the MACT requirements
for heat exchange systems.
    Although we expect the El Paso column to mimic the stripping that
occurs in the cooling tower, the amount of stripping that occurs in the
cooling tower is dependent on the design and operation of the cooling
tower. Moreover, the purpose for the use of the El Paso Method is to
detect leaks in heat exchange systems, not to estimate emissions.
Consequently, we do not believe that analytical methods based on the
measurement of single constituents or that employ inlet/outlet cooling
tower water sampling are equivalent to the El Paso Method for
determining strippable VOC. That is, these alternative methods would
not result in the same corrective action thresholds as the prescribed
monitoring technique.
    The commenters have provided no evidence that a build-up of heavy
organics would cause a heat exchange system to exceed a leak definition
of 6.2 ppmv total strippable VOC, nor have they provided compelling
evidence that such a leak would not result in any air emissions. While
we agree that the relative stripping efficiency of a given cooling
tower will not necessarily match the stripping efficiency of the El
Paso stripping column, it is unreasonable to conclude that the cooling
tower will have no HAP emissions. Furthermore, the majority of HAP
included in Table 1 are volatile. Thus, for a heat exchange system that
is ``in HAP service,'' we believe it is appropriate to initiate
corrective action if the leak threshold is exceeded because that
corrective action will result in reduced HAP emissions.
    As stated previously, the goal of the heat exchange system
provisions is to identify and fix leaks at the heat exchanger to reduce
subsequent emissions of HAP. For once-through cooling systems, we
believe it is unlikely that the strippable organics concentration in
the inlet water would exceed the leak threshold. Further, the
commenters have provided no evidence that the fresh water feed for a
once-through heat exchange system could contain enough strippable
organics to cause a heat exchange system to exceed a leak definition of
6.2 ppmv total strippable VOC. Therefore, we have not provided any
alternative leak detection procedure for once-through heat exchangers.
    Comment: Commenters supported allowing the facility to demonstrate
that a leak is not in a heat exchanger that is in HAP service. One
commenter stated that if VOC testing indicates a leak in a heat
exchange system, the facility should be allowed to speciate the
compounds in the leak to determine if the leak is a HAP leak. Another
commenter agreed, noting that proposed Sec.  63.654(e) requires
monitoring of every individual exchanger in organic HAP service in a
heat exchange system in order to prove that the leak is not from an
exchanger in organic HAP service. The commenter stated that this
requirement is very costly and recommended three alternatives: (1) The
owner or operator should be allowed to determine the species in the
process or processes served by the cooling tower to determine if the
process is in HAP service; (2) the owner or operator should be allowed
to speciate the sample from the cooling tower return line to determine
the leaking heat exchanger; and (3) the owner or operator should be
allowed to sample groups of heat exchangers rather than each individual
heat exchanger.
    One commenter noted that the supplemental proposal appears to only
allow sampling at the outlet of each heat exchanger or at the inlet to
a cooling tower, but it is often preferred to sample at branch points
in cooling tower return piping for several reasons: (1) Only a
particular branch has exchangers in HAP service; (2) it is easier to
identify the source of any leak that does occur; or (3) a particular
cooling tower is shared among administrative units and compliance is
more readily achieved if each unit is responsible for its own heat
exchangers. The commenter also noted that the language is inconsistent
with the definition of ``heat exchange system,'' which can be any
number of exchangers, not just one exchanger or all exchangers in a
particular cooling water loop. The commenter suggested revisions to the
definition of ``cooling tower return line'' to clarify the requirement.
    Response: The purpose for the rule is to find and fix leaks for
heat exchange systems in organic HAP service. If a leak is detected at
a cooling tower return line or in a once-through system, the owner/
operator can find and fix the leak by any means possible, including the
means specified by the commenters. If, however, the owner/operator does
not want to fix the leak because they believe that the leak is caused
by heat exchangers that are not in organic HAP service, the only way to
definitively prove that is to test the individual or groups of heat
exchangers in organic HAP service that make up the system in which a
leak has been detected.
    The Texas permit data and TCEQ El Paso Method is based on
strippable VOC. We found that this is an appropriate surrogate for HAP
emissions for cooling towers that are in HAP service. A refinery may
use speciation of the El Paso column stripping air or other methods at
their discretion to determine the location of the leak. However, we
cannot provide, based on the MACT floor requirements, an alternative
action level that defines a HAP leak as opposed to a VOC leak, as the
commenter proposes.
    We have made minor adjustments to the final standards to allow our
intended outcome of alternative 3, as described by the commenter.
Specifically, we have clarified the definition of heat exchanger exit
line to include water lines from ``one or more heat exchangers.'' This
clarification is intended to allow monitoring using the Modified El
Paso Method from each heat exchanger or group of heat exchangers in
organic HAP service upstream of the cooling tower return line. For
example, if three process units are served by one heat exchange system
and multiple heat exchangers are grouped by process unit and the three
return lines combine before the main cooling tower return line, then
the owner or operator may choose to measure each of the three return
lines associated with a process unit in organic HAP service. If
monitoring at those points results in concentrations less

than the leak definition, then no repair is necessary.
6. Impact Estimates for Cooling Towers
    Comment: Several commenters argued that EPA's estimates of baseline
emissions were based on faulty and unsupported premises. One commenter
stated that the model cooling tower sizes understate the emissions
because the average flow rate is a factor of 2 less than in a study
performed by the Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention
(GHASP). One commenter said the emissions are understated because they
do not include HAP emissions from SSM events. Two commenters questioned
the use of TCEQ inventory data. One commenter stated that the TCEQ
inventory appears to be biased low for HAP when compared to the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) reported releases (on a plant-wide basis). The
other commenter suggested that EPA mistakenly assumed the TCEQ data
were based on controlled emission factors in projecting the baseline
emissions ranging from 352 to 2,300 ton/yr because of the guidance
provided in the 2006 TCEQ inventory guidelines for cooling towers. The
commenter also cited a report by URS Corporation where two high rate
leaks were identified as evidence that the baseline emission rates were
too low.
    Two commenters stated that the cooling tower impacts do not account
for the maximum emissions allowed under the proposed MACT standard.
According to the commenters, the cooling tower impacts assume 50
percent of leaks are fixed as soon as possible rather than the 45 days
allowed in the proposed rule, and they do not account for permitted
delay of repair for up to 120 days. Also, the commenters stated that
the EPA did not justify the 50 percent assumption for delay of repair
and should assume all refineries will delay repair.
    Two commenters also cited variability in the emissions from cooling
towers as a concern. One commenter stated that the use of a single
average HAP content for the cooling tower emissions estimates does not
consider the range of potential HAP concentrations. Another commenter
questioned the use of 2004 TCEQ inventory data by comparing the 2004
TCEQ inventory for selected refineries with TCEQ data for 2005 and
2006, which showed that the quantity and composition of emissions is
variable from year to year. According to this commenter, EPA failed to
account for this variability or provide rationale as to why the 2004
emissions data are representative, and, therefore, the analysis fails
to capture all refinery emissions and is unlawful.
    Response: We disagree with the commenters that state that the
cooling tower emissions were understated or otherwise not properly
characterized when developing the impact estimates. With respect to the
cooling tower sizes, the GHASP study includes refineries and chemical
plants, and the data are skewed by several large cooling towers, which
we believe are associated with petrochemical (ethylene) plants and not
refineries. Eliminating the three largest cooling towers of the 54
cooling towers in the GHASP dataset brings the data (which include only
the Houston area, which has larger than average-sized refineries) in
reasonable agreement with the projected size-distribution of cooling
towers (the mean cooling tower recirculation rate in the GHASP data is
reduced from a factor of 200 percent to a factor of 50 percent above
the mean flow rate in our impacts analysis). The TCEQ emissions data
and the AP-42 emission factors are the best available data by which to
estimate cooling tower emissions. The TRI does not provide emissions
breakdown by source, so it is impossible to determine what emissions in
the TRI are associated with cooling towers.
    We specifically consider SSM emissions in the cooling tower
impacts. Heat exchanger leaks that result in cooling tower emissions
are a type of malfunction. If the units operate as designed, there
would be no emissions from the cooling towers. No additional emissions
are expected specific to cooling towers during startup or shutdown
events. The requirements for monitoring and repairing heat exchange
systems directly address malfunction emissions.
    We also note that selected short-term emissions from selected heat
exchanger leaks are not indicative of the average long-term emissions
that are appropriate for estimating chronic effects or life-time cancer
incidence. Not all heat exchange systems leak every year, and the leaks
that do occur do not last all year long. Note also that two of the
``leaks'' identified in the cited study were comparable to the
controlled AP-42 emission factor. Our impact estimates directly account
for the fact that some heat exchangers do not have leaks at all, some
have small leaks, and some have large leaks. We compared emission
estimates using a variety of methods and determined that the baseline
and controlled emission estimates were as accurate and unbiased as we
could develop.
    The commenters also incorrectly characterized our emission
estimates with respect to repair times. For cooling towers that were
assumed to be repaired as soon as possible, we used the full 45-day
repair allowance plus 15 days (one-half the monitoring frequency) for
estimating the duration of the leak. Leaks may occur any time between
monitoring events, but 15 days provides the best estimate of the
average leak duration prior to identifying the leak. Once a refinery
owner or operator measures a leak and identifies its source, they will
also know what actions are needed to reduce the leak. In some
instances, the refinery owner or operator will find that the cost of
repairing the leak is easily offset by the recovery of the leaking
product or process stream. In these cases, the refinery owner or
operator will elect to repair the leak rather than delay repair. While
data are limited, our best engineering estimate is that roughly 50
percent of leaks will be repaired within the first 45 days simply
because it is economical to do so. For the 50 percent of leaks for
which repair is delayed, 120 days was used as the duration of the leak
when estimating the emissions from these units.
    With respect to the TCEQ data, we are confident that the controlled
AP-42 emission factors were generally used. Public comments were
received on the original proposal requesting that corrections be made
to the emissions data for the highest emitting cooling towers in the
TCEQ dataset because the uncontrolled AP-42 emission factor had been
incorrectly used, and that the controlled AP-42 emission factor should
be used. We also note that TCEQ's 2006 guidance on use of AP-42
emission factors cited by the commenter came out well after the 2004
inventory was developed, so its use was not possible. Finally we note
that, if the TCEQ inventory estimates were based on uncontrolled
emission factors, then the 352 ton/yr projection from the TCEQ data
would be the upper-end of the range, which would make the baseline
emission estimate lower, not higher.
    Finally, while leaks from heat exchangers that give rise to cooling
tower emissions are inherently random and variable, our analysis was
specifically designed to provide an estimate of the long-term (life-
time) exposure from cooling tower emissions. Assuming that all leaks
come from a specific unit with high HAP content, that all leaks are
big, and that all repairs will be delayed provides a completely
unrealistic picture of long-term emissions. When assessing short-term
exposure, we multiplied our long-term emissions by a factor of 10,
which

effectively accounts for the variability in emissions cited by the
commenters.
    Comment: One commenter stated that cooling tower emission
reductions are estimated by EPA to be 4 to 10 percent, but the GHASP
Report 2006 shows reductions on the order of 90 percent. As such, the
commenter suggested that the emission and emission reduction estimates
are unreasonable and conclusions drawn from the emission estimates are
unreliable.
    Response: The analysis includes all emission sources covered under
the Refinery MACT 1 regulation. If, at baseline, cooling towers
represent only 5 percent of a refineries HAP emissions, a 90-percent
reduction in cooling tower emissions would only result in a 4.5-percent
reduction in the nationwide baseline HAP emissions from refineries. The
cooling tower impact memo (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146-0143)
indicates that the proposed MACT requirements for cooling towers will
result in an 82-percent reduction in VOC and HAP emissions from cooling
towers, which is in reasonable agreement with the reduction estimates
in the GHASP Report 2006.

B. General Provisions Applicability

    Comment: One commenter supported the revisions to Table 6 of
Refinery MACT 1 in the supplemental proposal but had a few suggested
revisions. First, the commenter noted that EPA proposed that Sec. Sec.
63.5(d)(1)(iii), (2), and (3)(ii) apply to Refinery MACT 1. The
commenter stated that this change would require owners and operators to
include considerable emission and control information in requests to
construct or reconstruct, and this information has not previously been
required. In particular, the commenter noted that the proposal to
require measured emission data in the Notice of Compliance Status
required by Sec.  63.5(d)(1)(iii) would be very costly, and the
permitting authority is the best party to identify where testing is
required to confirm mass emission limitations are being met. The
commenter recommended that EPA not finalize this proposed requirement;
if finalized, the requirements should only apply to construction or
reconstruction that commenced after September 7, 2007.
    Second, the commenter stated that Sec.  63.8(b)(2), which EPA
proposed should apply to Refinery MACT 1, specifies monitoring location
requirements that may conflict with existing monitoring locations. If
owners or operators do not already have monitors in locations that
comply with Sec.  63.8(b)(2), they could be out of compliance on the
date these requirements are finalized. The commenter noted that EPA has
not evaluated the impacts of these efforts, and no additional
compliance time has been provided, so EPA should not finalize this
proposal.
    Finally, the commenter noted that EPA proposed to require Refinery
MACT 1 sources to comply with Sec. Sec.  63.1(b)(3) and 63.10(b)(3),
which require owners and operators to keep ``negative'' records. The
commenter stated that these records serve no purpose and have not been
kept in the past.
    Response: We have reviewed the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A) and Table 6 of Refinery MACT 1 as included in the
supplemental proposal, and we have determined that the emission
estimates in Sec.  63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H) and the emission measurements in
Sec.  63.5(d)(1)(iii) are not necessary. Given the types of emission
sources affected by Refinery MACT 1, estimating the emissions ``* * *
in units and averaging times specified by the relevant standard'' is
not relevant for most of the sources. The permitting authority has a
right to require HAP emission estimates for Refinery MACT 1 process
units, but the permitting authority has discretion on what emission
estimates are needed. Paragraph 63.5(d)(1)(iii) is unworkable for most
Refinery MACT 1 emission sources as these sources do not lend
themselves to direct emission measurements. However, the information
required under Sec.  63.5(d)(2) and (3) is reasonable and necessary
information needed by permitting agencies and we are including these
requirements from the General Provisions in Table 6 of Refinery MACT 1
in the final amendments.
    Paragraph 63.8(b)(2) provides specific guidelines and options for
monitoring when emissions from two or more affected sources are
combined before being released into the air. While Refinery MACT 1 does
specify locations to conduct monitoring, it does not address instances
where multiple emission sources are combined. We find that Sec.
63.8(b)(2) provides useful guidance that does not contradict or
otherwise alter the monitoring locations specified in Refinery MACT 1.
As such, we are specifying in Table 6 of Refinery MACT 1 that Sec.
63.8(b)(2) applies.
    We agree with the commenter that Sec. Sec.  63.1(b)(3) and
63.10(b)(3) should not apply because the records required in these
sections apply to applicability determinations that have long been
completed and the records required under these sections would no longer
need to be retained because they would be over 5 years old.
Furthermore, the amendments specify the records needed for the new heat
exchange system requirements specified under these sections are not
necessary.

V. Summary of Impacts

    The total capital investment cost of the final amendments is
estimated at $16 million. The total annualized cost of the controls
required by the final amendments is expected to be $3.0 million, which
includes $2.2 million credit for recovery of lost product and the
annualized cost of capital. The final amendments will achieve a
nationwide HAP emission reduction of about 630 ton/yr with a concurrent
reduction in VOC emissions of about 4,100 ton/yr. Table 1 of this
preamble summarizes the cost and emission reduction impacts of the
final standards.

                                              Table 1--Nationwide Impacts of Heat Exchange System Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Total
                                                           Total capital    annualized        Product          Total       HAP emission        Cost-
                     Affected source                      investment  ($   cost without      recovery       annualized      reductions     effectiveness
                                                             million)       recovery ($      credit ($       costs ($        (ton/yr)       ($/ton HAP)
                                                                             million)        million)       million/yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat exchange systems...................................              16             5.2           (2.2)             3.0             630           4,700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule will be
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements in the final amendments include
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions for cooling towers.
Owners or operators of cooling towers must conduct monthly monitoring
of each heat exchanger to identify and repair leaks. Records of
monitoring and repair data also must be kept. All respondents must
submit one-time notifications and semiannual compliance reports.
    The information collection requirements in this final rule are
needed by EPA and delegated authorities to determine that compliance
has been achieved. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this
final rule are based on the information collection requirements in the
part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the General Provisions are
mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All
information submitted to EPA pursuant to the information collection
requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is safeguarded
according to CAA section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 13,647 labor hours per
year at a cost of $1,048,783 for one new refinery and 153 existing
refineries. The average annual reporting burden is 2,825.72 labor hours
for 154 total annual responses; the average annual burden per response
is 18.35 hours. Responses include Notifications of Compliance Status
for cooling towers at new and existing refineries and semiannual
compliance reports containing information on cooling towers at new and
existing refineries. Capital/startup costs are estimated at
$16,306,000. The operation and maintenance costs associated with the
final rule amendments are estimated at $61,711. Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. EPA is
amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved ICR control
numbers issued by OMB for various regulations to list the information
requirements contained in this final rule. This amendment updates the
table to list the information collection requirements being promulgated
today as amendments to the NESHAP for petroleum refineries.
    EPA will continue to present OMB control numbers in a consolidated
table format to be codified in 40 CFR part 9 of the Agency's
regulations, and in each CFR volume containing EPA regulations. The
table lists the section numbers with reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and the current OMB control numbers. This listing of the
OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR
satisfy the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501, et seq.) and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small
businesses at 13 CFR 121.201 (a firm having no more than 1,500
employees); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on our
economic impact analysis, the amendments will result in a nationwide
net annualized cost of about $3.0 million, which includes a credit of
about $2.2 million per year from reductions in product losses. Of the
24 small entities that would incur annualized costs as a result of the
final amendments, annualized costs for each of them are below 0.02
percent of revenues; therefore, no adverse economic impacts are
expected for any small entity. Thus, the costs associated with the
final amendments will not result in any ``significant'' adverse
economic impact for any small or large entity.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result
in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any one
year. As discussed earlier in this preamble, these amendments result in
nationwide costs of $3.0 million per year for the private sector. Thus,
the final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The final
amendments contain no requirements that apply to such governments, and
impose no obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    The final amendments do not have federalism implications. They
would

not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. These final amendments add
control and performance demonstration requirements. They do not modify
existing responsibilities or create new responsibilities among EPA
Regional offices, States, or local enforcement agencies. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final amendments.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The final
amendments will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The final amendments impose no requirements on
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined
in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that the
final amendments are not likely to have any adverse energy effects
because they result in overall savings due to product recovery.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law No. 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
    This final rule involves technical standards. EPA has decided to
use ``Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for Determination
of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water Sources,'' Revision
Number One, dated January 2003, and will incorporate the method by
reference (see 40 CFR 63.14). This method is available at http://
www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/sipdocs/2002-
12-HGB/02046sipapp_ado.pdf, or from the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Library, Post Office Box 13087, Austin,
Texas 78711-3087, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>. This method was
chosen because it is an effective means to determine leaks from heat
exchangers and it is the method used in the best performing facilities.
This TCEQ method utilizes a dynamic or flow-through system for air
stripping a sample of the water and analyzing the resultant off-gases
for VOC using a common flame ionization detector analyzer. While direct
water analyses, such as purge and trap analyses of water samples
utilizing gas chromatography and/or mass spectrometry techniques, have
been shown to be effective for cooling tower measurements of heavier
molecular weight organic compounds with relatively high boiling points,
it has been determined that this approach may be ineffective for
capture and measurement of VOC with lower boiling points, such as
ethylene, propylene, 1,3-butadiene, and butenes. The VOC with a low
molecular weight and boiling point are generally lost in the sample
collection step of purge/trap type analyses. Consequently, this TCEQ
air stripping method is used for cooling tower and other applicable
water matrix emission measurements of VOC with boiling points below 140
[deg]F.
    Under Sec. Sec.  63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative
test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any
required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures in
the final rule and amendments.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.
    This rulemaking will achieve significant reductions of HAP
emissions from cooling towers located at petroleum refineries. Exposure
to HAP emissions raises concerns regarding environmental health for the
United States population in general, including the minority populations
and low-income populations that are the focus of the Environmental
Justice Executive Order.
    The emission reductions from the new standards finalized in the
petroleum refinery rule will have beneficial effects on communities in
proximity to petroleum refineries, including low-income and minority
communities. For example, the new standards for cooling towers will
reduce air toxics emissions from petroleum refineries by 630 tons and
VOC emissions by 4,100 tons annually.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
final rule and other required information to the United States Senate,
the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the United States prior to publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days
after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will be
effective on October 28, 2009.

List of Subject for 40 CFR Parts 9 and 63

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

    Dated: October 15, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 9--[AMENDED]

0
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.

0
2. The table in Section 9.1 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the entry for 63.654 under the heading ``National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories''; and
0
b. Adding an entry for 63.655 in numerical order under the indicated
heading to read as follows:

Sec.  9.1  OMB Approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OMB control
                     40 CFR citation                            No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
   National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
                             Categories \3\

                                * * * * *
63.655..................................................       2060-0340

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

* * * * *

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
4. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (n) The following material is available from the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Library, Post Office Box 13087, Austin,
Texas 78711-3087, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> 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.  63.654(c)(1) and (g)(4)(i) of subpart CC of this part.
    (2) [Reserved]

Subpart CC--[Amended]

0
5. Section 63.640 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(2);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7);
0
e. Adding paragraph (c)(8);
0
f. Revising paragraphs (e) introductory text, and (e)(2)(iii);
0
g. Revising paragraphs (f) introductory text, and (f)(5);
0
h. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text;
0
i. Revising paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2);
0
j. Revising paragraph (h)(4);
0
k. Adding paragraph (h)(6);
0
l. Revising paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2)(i), (k)(2)(ii), (k)(2)(iii), and
the first sentence in paragraph (k)(2)(vi);
0
m. Revising paragraphs (l) introductory text, and (l)(2)(i), the first
sentence in paragraph (l)(2)(ii), the first sentence in paragraph
(l)(3) introductory text, paragraphs (l)(3)(i) and (l)(3)(ii), the
first sentence in paragraph (l)(3)(vi), and the first sentence in
paragraph (l)(3)(vii); and
0
n. Revising paragraph (p) 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)(5)
through (c)(8) of this section that are located at a plant site and
that meet the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section:
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The determination of applicability of this subpart to petroleum
refining process units that are designed and operated as flexible
operation units shall be reported as specified in Sec.
63.655(h)(6)(i).
    (c) For the purposes of this subpart, the affected source shall
comprise all emissions points, in combination, listed in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(8) of this section that are located at a single
refinery plant site.
* * * * *
    (6) All marine vessel loading operations located at a petroleum
refinery meeting the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section and the
applicability criteria of subpart Y, Sec.  63.560;
    (7) All storage vessels and equipment leaks associated with a bulk
gasoline terminal or pipeline breakout station classified under
Standard Industrial Classification code 2911 located within a
contiguous area and under common control with a refinery meeting the
criteria in paragraph (a) of this section; and
    (8) All heat exchange systems associated with petroleum refining
process units meeting the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section and
which are in organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) service as defined
in this subpart.
* * * * *
    (e) The owner or operator of a storage vessel constructed on or
before August 18, 1994, shall follow the procedures specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section to determine whether a
storage vessel is part of a source to which this subpart applies. The
owner or operator of a storage vessel constructed after August 18,
1994, shall follow the procedures specified in paragraphs (e)(1),
(e)(2)(i), and (e)(2)(ii) of this section to determine whether a
storage vessel is part of a source to which this subpart applies.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) If the predominant use of a storage vessel varies from year
to year, then the applicability of this subpart shall be determined
based on the utilization of that storage vessel during the year
preceding August 18, 1995.

This determination shall be reported as specified in Sec.
63.655(h)(6)(ii).
    (f) The owner or operator of a distillation unit constructed on or
before August 18, 1994, shall follow the procedures specified in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) of this section to determine whether a
miscellaneous process vent from a distillation unit is part of a source
to which this subpart applies. The owner or operator of a distillation
unit constructed after August 18, 1994, shall follow the procedures
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(5) of this section to
determine whether a miscellaneous process vent from a distillation unit
is part of a source to which this subpart applies.
* * * * *
    (5) If the predominant use of a distillation unit varies from year
to year, then the applicability of this subpart shall be determined
based on the utilization of that distillation unit during the year
preceding August 18, 1995. This determination shall be reported as
specified in Sec.  63.655(h)(6)(iii).
* * * * *
    (h) Except as provided in paragraphs (k), (l), or (m) of this
section, sources subject to this subpart are required to achieve
compliance on or before the dates specified in paragraphs (h)(1)
through (h)(6) of this section.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (iv) of this
section, new sources that commence construction or reconstruction after
July 14, 1994, shall be in compliance with this subpart upon initial
startup or August 18, 1995, whichever is later.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Heat exchange systems at new sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after August 18, 1995, but before
September 4, 2007, shall comply with the existing source requirements
for heat exchange systems specified in Sec.  63.654 no later than
October 29, 2012.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) Heat exchange systems at new sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after September 4, 2007, shall be in
compliance with the new source requirements in Sec.  63.654 upon
initial startup or October 28, 2009, whichever is later.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraphs (h)(3) through (h)(6) of this
section, existing sources shall be in compliance with this subpart no
later than August 18, 1998, except as provided in Sec.  63.6(c)(5) of
subpart A of this part, or unless an extension has been granted by the
Administrator as provided in Sec.  63.6(i) of subpart A of this part.
* * * * *
    (4) Existing Group 1 floating roof storage vessels shall be in
compliance with Sec.  63.646 of this subpart at the first degassing and
cleaning activity after August 18, 1998, or August 18, 2005, whichever
is first.
* * * * *
    (6) Heat exchange systems at an existing source shall be in
compliance with the existing source standards in Sec.  63.654 no later
than October 29, 2012.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) The reconstructed source, addition, or change shall be in
compliance with the new source requirements upon initial startup of the
reconstructed source or by August 18, 1995, whichever is later; and
    (2) * * *
    (i) The application for approval of construction or reconstruction
shall be submitted as soon as practical before the construction or
reconstruction is planned to commence (but it need not be sooner than
November 16, 1995);
    (ii) The Notification of Compliance Status report as required by
Sec.  63.655(f) for a new source, addition, or change;
    (iii) Periodic Reports and other reports as required by Sec.
63.655(g) and (h);
* * * * *
    (vi) Reports and notifications required by Sec.  63.428(b), (c),
(g)(1), (h)(1) through (h)(3), and (k) of subpart R. * * *
* * * * *
    (l) If an additional petroleum refining process unit is added to a
plant site or if a miscellaneous process vent, storage vessel, gasoline
loading rack, marine tank vessel loading operation, or heat exchange
system that meets the criteria in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this
section is added to an existing petroleum refinery or if another
deliberate operational process change creating an additional Group 1
emissions point(s) (as defined in Sec.  63.641) is made to an existing
petroleum refining process unit, and if the addition or process change
is not subject to the new source requirements as determined according
to paragraphs (i) or (j) of this section, the requirements in
paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section shall apply. Examples of
process changes include, but are not limited to, changes in production
capacity, or feed or raw material where the change requires
construction or physical alteration of the existing equipment or
catalyst type, or whenever there is replacement, removal, or addition
of recovery equipment. For purposes of this paragraph and paragraph (m)
of this section, process changes do not include: Process upsets,
unintentional temporary process changes, and changes that are within
the equipment configuration and operating conditions documented in the
Notification of Compliance Status report required by Sec.  63.655(f).
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) If a petroleum refining process unit is added to a plant site
or an emission point(s) is added to any existing petroleum refining
process unit, the added emission point(s) shall be in compliance upon
initial startup of any added petroleum refining process unit or
emission point(s) or by August 18, 1998, whichever is later.
    (ii) If a deliberate operational process change to an existing
petroleum refining process unit causes a Group 2 emission point to
become a Group 1 emission point (as defined in Sec.  63.641), the owner
or operator shall be in compliance upon initial startup or by August
18, 1998, whichever is later, unless the owner or operator demonstrates
to the Administrator that achieving compliance will take longer than
making the change.* * *
    (3) The owner or operator of a petroleum refining process unit or
of a storage vessel, miscellaneous process vent, wastewater stream,
gasoline loading rack, marine tank vessel loading operation, or heat
exchange system meeting the criteria in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8)
of this section that is added to a plant site and is subject to the
requirements for existing sources shall comply with the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements that are applicable to existing sources
including, but not limited to, the reports listed in paragraphs
(l)(3)(i) through (vii) of this section.* * *
    (i) The Notification of Compliance Status report as required by
Sec.  63.655(f) for the emission points that were added or changed;
    (ii) Periodic Reports and other reports as required by Sec.
63.655(g) and (h);
* * * * *
    (vi) Reports and notifications required by Sec.  63.428(b), (c),
(g)(1), (h)(1) through (h)(3), and (k) of subpart R. * * *
    (vii) Reports and notifications required by Sec. Sec.  63.565 and
63.567 of subpart Y. * * *
* * * * *
    (p) Overlap of subpart CC with other regulations for equipment
leaks.
    (1) After the compliance dates specified in paragraph (h) of this
section, equipment leaks that are also subject to the provisions of 40
CFR parts 60 and 61 standards promulgated before

September 4, 2007, are required to comply only with the provisions
specified in this subpart.
    (2) Equipment leaks that are also subject to the provisions of 40
CFR part 60, subpart GGGa, are required to comply only with the
provisions specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 63.641 is amended by:
0
a. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for ``Cooling tower,''
``Cooling tower return line,'' ``Heat exchange system,'' and ``Heat
exchanger exit line''; and
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Continuous record'' to read as follows:

Sec.  63.641  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Continuous record means documentation, either in hard copy or
computer readable form, of data values measured at least once every
hour and recorded at the frequency specified in Sec.  63.655(i).
* * * * *
    Cooling tower means a heat removal device used to remove the heat
absorbed in circulating cooling water systems by transferring the heat
to the atmosphere using natural or mechanical draft.
    Cooling tower return line means the main water trunk lines at the
inlet to the cooling tower before exposure to the atmosphere.
* * * * *
    Heat exchange system means a device or series of devices used to
transfer heat from process fluids to water without intentional direct
contact of the process fluid with the water (i.e., non-contact heat
exchanger) and to transport and/or cool the water in a closed-loop
recirculation system (cooling tower system) or a once-through system
(e.g., river or pond water). For closed-loop recirculation systems, the
heat exchange system consists of a cooling tower, all heat exchangers
that are serviced by that cooling tower, and all water lines to and
from the heat exchanger(s). For 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, in, as an example, a once-through
cooling system, whichever occurs first.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.642 is amended by revising paragraphs (k)(1) and (l)(2)
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.642  General standards.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator using this compliance approach shall also
comply with the requirements of Sec.  63.655 as applicable.
* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (2) Comply with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  63.652, 63.653, and
63.655, as applicable.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.644 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(1);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.644  Monitoring provisions for miscellaneous process vents.

* * * * *
    (b) An owner or operator of a Group 1 miscellaneous process vent
may request approval to monitor parameters other than those listed in
paragraph (a) of this section. The request shall be submitted according
to the procedures specified in Sec.  63.655(h). Approval shall be
requested if the owner or operator:
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a flow indicator that
determines whether a vent stream flow is present at least once every
hour. Records shall be generated as specified in Sec.  63.655(h) and
(i). The flow indicator shall be installed at the entrance to any
bypass line that could divert the vent stream away from the control
device to the atmosphere; or
* * * * *
    (d) The owner or operator shall establish a range that ensures
compliance with the emissions standard for each parameter monitored
under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. In order to establish the
range, the information required in Sec.  63.655(f)(3) shall be
submitted in the Notification of Compliance Status report.
    (e) Each owner or operator of a control device subject to the
monitoring provisions of this section shall operate the control device
in a manner consistent with the minimum and/or maximum operating
parameter value or procedure required to be monitored under paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section. Operation of the control device in a
manner that constitutes a period of excess emissions, as defined in
Sec.  63.655(g)(6), or failure to perform procedures required by this
section shall constitute a violation of the applicable emission
standard of this subpart.

0
9. Section 63.645 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.645  Test methods and procedures for miscellaneous process
vents.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) Where the recalculated TOC emission rate is greater than 33
kilograms per day for an existing source or greater than 6.8 kilograms
per day for a new source, the owner or operator shall submit a report
as specified in Sec.  63.655(f), (g), or (h) and shall comply with the
appropriate provisions in Sec.  63.643 by the dates specified in Sec.
63.640.
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.646 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.646  Storage vessel provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) An owner or operator may use good engineering judgment or test
results to determine the stored liquid weight percent total organic HAP
for purposes of group determination. Data, assumptions, and procedures
used in the determination shall be documented.
* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.650 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows.

Sec.  63.650  Gasoline loading rack provisions.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (c) of this
section, each owner or operator of a Group 1 gasoline loading rack
classified under Standard Industrial Classification code 2911 located
within a contiguous area and under common control with a petroleum
refinery shall comply with subpart R, Sec. Sec.  63.421, 63.422(a)
through (c) and (e), 63.425(a) through (c) and (i), 63.425(e) through
(h), 63.427(a) and (b), and 63.428(b), (c), (g)(1), (h)(1) through (3),
and (k).
* * * * *

0
12. Section 63.651 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.651  Marine tank vessel loading operation provisions.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section, each

owner or operator of a marine tank vessel loading operation located at
a petroleum refinery shall comply with the requirements of Sec. Sec.
63.560 through 63.568.
* * * * *
    (c) The notification reports under Sec.  63.567(b) are not
required.
* * * * *

0
13. Section 63.652 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (e)(5);
0
c. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (f)(3) introductory text;
0
d. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (g)(5)(ii)(B)(1); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (l)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.652  Emissions averaging provisions.

    (a) This section applies to owners or operators of existing sources
who seek to comply with the emission standard in Sec.  63.642(g) by
using emissions averaging according to Sec.  63.642(l) rather than
following the provisions of Sec. Sec.  63.643 through 63.647, and
Sec. Sec.  63.650 and 63.651. Existing marine tank vessel loading
operations located at the Valdez Marine Terminal source may not comply
with the standard by using emissions averaging.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (5) Record and report quarterly and annual credits and debits in
the Periodic Reports as specified in Sec.  63.655(g)(8). Every fourth
Periodic Report shall include a certification of compliance with the
emissions averaging provisions as required by Sec.  63.655(g)(8)(iii).
    (f) * * *
    (3) For emission points for which continuous monitors are used,
periods of excess emissions as defined in Sec.  63.655(g)(6)(i). * * *
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (1) The percent reduction for a control device shall be measured
according to the procedures and test methods specified in Sec.
63.565(d) of subpart Y. * * *
* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator shall notify the Administrator of excess
emissions in the Periodic Reports as required in Sec.  63.655(g)(6).
* * * * *

0
14. Section 63.653 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(7);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
d. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(2)(vii) introductory
text, and (d)(2)(viii)(G) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.653  Monitoring, recordkeeping, and implementation plan for
emissions averaging.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (7) If an emission point in an emissions average is controlled
using a pollution prevention measure or a device or technique for which
no monitoring parameters or inspection procedures are specified in
Sec. Sec.  63.643 through 63.647 and Sec. Sec.  63.650 and 63.651, the
owner or operator shall establish a site-specific monitoring parameter
and shall submit the information specified in Sec.  63.655(h)(4) in the
Implementation Plan.
    (b) Records of all information required to calculate emission
debits and credits and records required by Sec.  63.655 shall be
retained for 5 years.
    (c) Notifications of Compliance Status report, Periodic Reports,
and other reports shall be submitted as required by Sec.  63.655.
    (d) Each owner or operator of an existing source who elects to
comply with Sec.  63.655(g) and (h) by using emissions averaging for
any emission points shall submit an Implementation Plan.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vii) The information specified in Sec.  63.655(h)(4) for:
* * * * *
    (viii) * * *
    (G) For each pollution prevention measure, treatment process, or
control device used to reduce air emissions of organic HAP from
wastewater and for which no monitoring parameters or inspection
procedures are specified in Sec.  63.647, the information specified in
Sec.  63.655(h)(4) shall be included in the Implementation Plan.
* * * * *

Sec. Sec.  63.654 and 63.655  [Redesignated as Sec. Sec.  63.655 and
63.656]

0
15. Sections 63.654 and 63.655 are redesignated as Sec. Sec.  63.655
and 63.656.

0
16. Section 63.654 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.654  Heat exchange systems.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the owner
or operator of a heat exchange system that meets the criteria in Sec.
63.640(c)(8) must comply with the requirements of paragraphs (c)
through (g) of this section.
    (b) A heat exchange system is exempt from the requirements in
paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section if it meets any one of the
criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (2) of this section.
    (1) All heat exchangers that are in organic HAP service within the
heat exchange system that either:
    (i) Operate with the minimum pressure on the cooling water side at
least 35 kilopascals greater than the maximum pressure on the process
side; or
    (ii) Employ an intervening cooling fluid, containing less than 5
percent by weight of total HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart,
between the process and the cooling water. This intervening fluid must
serve to isolate the cooling water from the process fluid and must not
be sent through a cooling tower or discharged. For purposes of this
section, discharge does not include emptying for maintenance purposes.
    (2) The heat exchange system cools process fluids that contain less
than 5 percent by weight of total HAP listed in Table 1 to this subpart
(i.e., the heat exchange system does not contain any heat exchangers
that are in organic HAP service as defined in this subpart).
    (c) The owner or operator must perform monthly monitoring to
identify leaks of total strippable volatile organic compound (VOC) from
each heat exchange system subject to the requirements of this subpart
according to the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this
section.
    (1) Collect and analyze a sample from each cooling tower return
line prior to exposure to air for each heat exchange system in organic
HAP service or from each heat exchanger exit line for each heat
exchanger or group of heat exchangers in organic HAP service within
that heat exchange system to determine the total strippable VOC
concentration (as methane) from the air stripping testing system using
``Air Stripping Method (Modified El Paso Method) for Determination of
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Water Sources'' Revision
Number One, dated January 2003, Sampling Procedures Manual, Appendix P:
Cooling Tower Monitoring, prepared by Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality, January 31, 2003 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14).
The owner or operator of a once-through heat exchange system may elect
to also monitor monthly (in addition to monitoring each heat exchanger
exit line) the fresh water feed line prior to any heat exchanger to
determine the total strippable VOC concentration (as methane) prior to
the heat exchange system using the Modified El Paso Method.

    (2) For a heat exchange system at an existing source, a leak is a
total strippable VOC concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas of
6.2 ppmv or greater. For a heat exchange system at a new source, a leak
is a total strippable VOC concentration (as methane) in the stripping
gas of 3.1 ppmv or greater.
    (d) If a leak is detected, the owner or operator must repair the
leak to reduce the measured concentration to below the applicable
action level as soon as practicable, but no later than 45 days after
identifying the leak, except as specified in paragraphs (e) and (f) of
this section. Actions that can be taken to achieve repair include but
are not limited to:
    (1) Physical modifications to the leaking heat exchanger, such as
welding the leak or replacing a tube;
    (2) Blocking the leaking tube within the heat exchanger;
    (3) Changing the pressure so that water flows into the process
fluid;
    (4) Replacing the heat exchanger or heat exchanger bundle; or
    (5) Isolating, bypassing, or otherwise removing the leaking heat
exchanger from service until it is otherwise repaired.
    (e) If the owner or operator detects a leak when monitoring a
cooling tower return line under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the
owner or operator may conduct additional monitoring to identify leaks
of total strippable VOC emissions using Modified El Paso Method from
each heat exchanger or group of heat exchangers in organic HAP service
associated with the heat exchange system for which the leak was
detected. If the additional monitoring shows that the total strippable
VOC concentration in the stripped air at the heat exchanger exit line
for each heat exchanger in organic HAP service is less than 6.2 ppmv
for existing sources or less than 3.1 ppmv for new sources, the heat
exchange system is excluded from repair requirements in paragraph (d)
of this section.
    (f) The owner or operator may delay the repair of a leaking heat
exchanger when one of the conditions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3)
of this section is met. The owner or operator must determine if a delay
of repair is necessary as soon as practicable, but no later than 45
days after first identifying the leak.
    (1) If the repair is technically infeasible without a shutdown and
the total strippable VOC concentration (as methane) is initially and
remains less than 62 ppmv for all monthly monitoring periods during the
delay of repair, the owner or operator may delay repair until the next