[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 4, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50716-50742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-17009]



[[Page 50715]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 50716]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146; FRL-8461-3]
RIN 2060-AO55


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From 
Petroleum Refineries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes amendments to the national emission 
standards for petroleum refineries to address the risk remaining after 
application of the 1995 standards. This action also provides the 
results of EPA's 8-year review of developments in practices, processes, 
and control technologies that have occurred since the time EPA adopted 
the emissions standards. Based on the results of the residual risk and 
technology review, this action proposes two options for both wastewater 
treatment systems and storage vessels. For wastewater treatment 
systems, the first option would not require any additional controls as 
necessary to address residual risk or under the technology review. The 
second option would require refineries to apply new or additional 
requirements for wastewater treatment systems. For storage vessels, the 
first option would also not require any additional controls as 
necessary to address residual risk or under the technology review and 
the second option would require refineries to apply new or additional 
requirements for storage vessels. Finally, we are also proposing two 
options for amendments to add emissions standards for cooling towers.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 5, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0146 (for petroleum refineries), by one of the following 
methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: [email protected].
     Fax: (202) 566-9744.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum 
Refineries: Residual Risk Standards Docket, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Mailcode: 
2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please 
include a total of two copies. We request that a separate copy also be 
sent to the contact person identified below (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments 
to: EPA Docket and Information Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20004. Such deliveries are accepted only during the Docket's normal 
hours of operation and special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0146. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov 
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you 
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or 
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries: 
Residual Risk Standards Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 
Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Lucas, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, 
Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Environmental Protection 
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number 
(919) 541-0884; fax number (919) 541-0246; e-mail address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    NAICS \1\    Examples of regulated
             Category                  code             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..........................      32411  Petroleum refineries
                                                located at a major
                                                source that are subject
                                                to 40 CFR part 63,
                                                subpart CC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industrial Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the 
proposed rule. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by 
the proposed amendments, you should carefully examine the applicability 
criteria in 40 CFR 63.100 of subpart CC (National

[[Page 50717]]

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

    Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through 
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information as CBI only 
to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control 
Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146 (for petroleum refineries). 
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be 
CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark 
the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that 
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.

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

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

D. When would a public hearing occur?

    If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing 
concerning the proposed amendments by September 17, 2007, we will hold 
a public hearing on October 1, 2007. If you are interested in attending 
the public hearing, contact Bob Lucas at (919) 541-0884 to verify that 
a hearing will be held. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 
10 a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium, Research 
Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.

E. How is this document organized?

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
    E. How is this document organized?
II. Background Information
    A. What is the statutory authority for regulating hazardous air 
pollutants?
    B. What source category is affected by this action?
    C. What are the emissions sources at petroleum refineries?
    D. What hazardous air pollutants are emitted from petroleum 
refineries?
    E. What does the NESHAP require?
III. Summary of Proposed Amendments to NESHAP for Petroleum 
Refineries
    A. What options are we proposing?
    B. What are the proposed requirements to meet CAA sections 
112(f)(2) and (d)(6) for storage vessels?
    C. What are the proposed requirements to meet CAA sections 112 
(f)(2) and (d)(6) for EBU used to treat Group 1 wastewater streams?
    D. What are the proposed requirements for cooling towers under 
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (f)(2)?
    E. What other revisions are we proposing?
    F. What is the compliance schedule for the proposed amendments?
IV. Rationale for Proposed Amendments
    A. What actions are we proposing under CAA section 112(d)(2)?
    B. How did we estimate residual risk?
    C. What are the residual risks from petroleum refineries?
    D. What are the uncertainties in risk assessments?
    E. What is our proposed decision under CAA section 112(f)?
    F. What is EPA proposing pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6)?
V. Request for Comments
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

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for regulating hazardous air 
pollutants?

    Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a two-stage 
regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants 
(HAP) from stationary sources. In the first stage, 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.
    The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and 
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. 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).
    The EPA is then required to review these technology-based standards 
and to revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently 
than every 8 years, under CAA section 112(d)(6). In this proposal, we 
are publishing the results of our 8-year review for the petroleum 
refineries source category. We are required by a consent decree to 
propose the results of our CAA section 112(d)(6) review by

[[Page 50718]]

August 21, 2007. The consent decree also requires EPA to consider and 
address the application of the NESHAP general provisions in 40 CFR part 
63, subpart A to the existing rule.
    The second stage in standard-setting focuses on reducing any 
remaining ``residual'' risk according to CAA section 112(f). This 
provision requires, first, that EPA prepare a Report to Congress 
discussing (among other things) methods of calculating risk posed (or 
potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the MACT 
standards, the public health significance of those risks, the means and 
costs of controlling them, actual health effects to persons in 
proximity of emitting sources, and recommendations as to legislation 
regarding such remaining risk. EPA prepared and submitted this report 
(Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA-453/R-99-001) in March 1999. 
Congress did not act in response to the report, thereby triggering 
EPA's obligation under CAA section 112(f)(2) to analyze and address 
residual risk.
    CAA Section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine for source 
categories subject to certain section 112(d) standards whether the 
emissions limitations protect public health with an ample margin of 
safety. If the MACT standards for HAP ``classified as a known, 
probable, or possible human carcinogen do not reduce lifetime excess 
cancer risks to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source 
in the category or subcategory to less than 1-in-1 million,'' EPA must 
promulgate residual risk standards for the source category (or 
subcategory) as necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health. The EPA must also adopt more stringent standards 
if necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect (defined in CAA 
section 112(a)(7) as any significant and widespread adverse effect * * 
* to wildlife, aquatic life, or natural resources * * *), but must 
consider cost, energy, safety, and other relevant factors in doing so. 
Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly preserves our use of a two-step 
process for developing standards to address any residual risk and our 
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from 
Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage 
Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants 
(Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
    The first step in this process is the determination of acceptable 
risk. The second step provides for an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health, which is the level at which the standards are set 
(unless a more stringent standard is required to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect after the consideration of costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors).
    The terms ``individual most exposed,'' ``acceptable level,'' and 
``ample margin of safety'' are not specifically defined in the CAA. 
However, CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) directs us to use the interpretation 
set out in the Benzene NESHAP. See also, A Legislative History of the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, volume 1, p. 877 (Senate debate on 
Conference Report). We notified Congress in the Residual Risk Report to 
Congress that we intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making 
CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. 
ES-11).
    In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as an overall objective:

    * * * in protecting public health with an ample margin of 
safety, we strive to provide maximum feasible protection against 
risks to health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) Protecting the 
greatest number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk 
level no higher than approximately 1-in-1 million; and (2) limiting 
to no higher than approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100-in-1 
million] the estimated risk that a person living near a facility 
would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant 
concentrations for 70 years.

    The Agency also stated that, ``The EPA also considers incidence 
(the number of persons estimated to suffer cancer or other serious 
health effects as a result of exposure to a pollutant) to be an 
important measure of the health risk to the exposed population. 
Incidence measures the extent of health risk to the exposed population 
as a whole, by providing an estimate of the occurrence of cancer or 
other serious health effects in the exposed population.'' The Agency 
went on to conclude that ``estimated incidence would be weighed along 
with other health risk information in judging acceptability.'' \1\ As 
explained more fully in our Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA does 
not define ``rigid line[s] of acceptability,'' but considers rather 
broad objectives to be weighed with a series of other health measures 
and factors (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the Benzene NESHAP decision, the Agency considered the 
same risk measures in the ``acceptability'' analysis as in the 
``margin of safety'' analysis, stating: ``In the ample margin 
decision, the Agency again considers all of the health risk and 
other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that 
information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of 
control will also be considered, including costs and economic 
impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and 
any other relevant factors. Considering all of these factors, the 
Agency will establish the standard at a level that provides an ample 
margin of safety to protect the public health, as required by 
section 112.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The determination of what represents an ``acceptable'' risk is 
based on a judgment of ``what risks are acceptable in the world in 
which we live'' (54 FR 38045, quoting the Vinyl Chloride decision at 
824 F.2d 1165) recognizing that our world is not risk-free.
    In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated that ``EPA will generally presume 
that if the risk to [the maximum exposed] individual is no higher than 
approximately 1-in-10 thousand, that risk level is considered 
acceptable.'' We discussed the maximum individual lifetime cancer risk 
as being ``the estimated risk that a person living near a plant would 
have if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations 
for 70 years.'' We explained that this measure of risk ``is an estimate 
of the upper bound of risk based on conservative assumptions, such as 
continuous exposure for 24 hours per day for 70 years.'' We acknowledge 
that maximum individual lifetime cancer risk ``does not necessarily 
reflect the true risk, but displays a conservative risk level which is 
an upper bound that is unlikely to be exceeded.''
    Understanding that there are both benefits and limitations to using 
maximum individual lifetime cancer risk as a metric for determining 
acceptability, we acknowledged in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP that 
``consideration of maximum individual risk * * * must take into account 
the strengths and weaknesses of this measure of risk.'' Consequently, 
the presumptive risk level of 100-in-1 million (1-in-10 thousand) 
provides a benchmark for judging the acceptability of maximum 
individual lifetime cancer risk, but does not constitute a rigid line 
for making that determination.
    The Agency also explained in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP the following: 
``In establishing a presumption for MIR, rather than rigid line for 
acceptability, the Agency intends to weigh it with a series of other 
health measures and factors. These include the overall incidence of 
cancer or other serious health effects within the exposed population, 
the numbers of persons exposed within each individual lifetime risk 
range and associated incidence within, typically, a 50 km exposure 
radius around facilities, the science policy assumptions and estimation 
uncertainties associated with the risk measures, weight of the 
scientific evidence for human health effects, other quantified or 
unquantified health

[[Page 50719]]

effects, effects due to co-location of facilities, and co-emission of 
pollutants.''
    In some cases, these health measures and factors taken together may 
provide a more realistic description of the magnitude of risk in the 
exposed population than that provided by maximum individual lifetime 
cancer risk alone.

B. What source category is affected by this action?

    Petroleum refineries are facilities engaged in refining and 
producing products made from crude oil or unfinished petroleum 
derivatives. Based on the Energy Information Administration's Refinery 
Capacity Report 2006, there are 150 operable petroleum refineries in 
the United States (U.S.) and the U.S. territories. A few of these 150 
refineries have integrated operations between two nearby, but non-
contiguous, locations. Therefore, we have identified and have data on 
153 distinct petroleum refinery facilities (according to the definition 
of facility in the CAA), all of which are major sources of HAP 
emissions. Petroleum refineries are located in 35 States, as well as 
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Texas, Louisiana, and 
California are the States with the most petroleum refining capacity. 
The permitting process has begun for construction of a new refinery in 
Arizona; this is the only newly constructed refinery anticipated over 
the next 5 years. However, a few additional refineries have announced 
significant expansion or modification projects that will essentially 
double their refining capacity.
    EPA listed two separate Petroleum Refinery source categories for 
regulation under CAA section 112(d), both of which include any facility 
engaged in producing gasoline, naphtha, kerosene, jet fuels, distillate 
fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, or other products from crude 
oil or unfinished petroleum derivatives. The first and primary source 
category for which regulations were developed, Petroleum Refineries--
Other Sources Not Distinctly Listed (Refinery MACT 1), includes all 
emission sources from petroleum refinery process units except those 
that were expected to be regulated elsewhere, such as the NESHAP for 
Boilers and Process Heaters (40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD). Refinery 
process units include, but are not limited to: Crude distillation, 
vacuum distillation, thermal cracking, catalytic cracking, catalytic 
reforming, hydrotreating, hydrorefining, isomerization, polymerization, 
lube oil processing, and hydrogen production. The Refinery MACT 1 rule 
specifically excludes three types of process vents: Catalytic cracking 
unit catalyst regeneration vents, catalytic reforming unit catalyst 
regeneration vents, and sulfur plant vents. These specific vents are 
regulated by the NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking 
Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units (Refinery 
MACT 2) in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU. It is important to note that 
equipment leaks and wastewater produced from catalytic cracking units, 
catalytic reforming units, and sulfur recovery units are subject to 
Refinery MACT 1; only the process vent emissions associated with these 
units are subject to Refinery MACT 2.

C. What are the emissions sources at petroleum refineries?

    The emissions sources subject to the Refinery MACT 1 rule include 
miscellaneous process vents, storage vessels, wastewater streams, and 
equipment leaks associated with petroleum refining process units, as 
well as gasoline loading racks and marine tank vessel loading 
operations located at a petroleum refinery. Storage vessels and 
equipment leaks associated with a bulk gasoline terminal or pipeline 
breakout station located at a petroleum refinery and under common 
control of the refinery are also subject to Refinery MACT 1. Cooling 
towers associated with petroleum refining process units are part of the 
MACT 1 source category although no specific emission limitations were 
established for cooling towers in the original Refinery MACT 1 rule. 
Thus, there are seven general types of emission sources under Refinery 
MACT 1: Miscellaneous process vents, storage vessels, wastewater 
streams, equipment leaks, gasoline loading racks, marine tank vessel 
loading operations, and cooling towers. Each of these emission sources 
are described briefly in sections II.C.1 through II.C.7 of this 
preamble.
1. Miscellaneous Process Vents
    Many unit operations at petroleum refineries generate gaseous 
streams that contain HAP. These streams may be routed to other unit 
operations for additional processing (i.e., a gas stream from a reactor 
that is routed to a distillation unit for separation) or they may be 
sent to a blowdown system or vented to the atmosphere. Miscellaneous 
process vents emit gases to the atmosphere, either directly or after 
passing through recovery and/or control devices.
2. Storage Vessels
    Storage vessels contain crude oil, intermediate products, and 
finished products. Different types of vessels are used to store various 
types of products. Gases are stored in pressurized vessels that are not 
vented to the atmosphere during normal operations while liquids are 
stored in horizontal, fixed roof, or floating roof tanks, depending on 
properties and volumes to be stored. Liquids with vapor pressures 
greater than 11 pounds per square inch of air (psia) are typically 
stored in fixed roof tanks that are vented to a control device. 
Volatile liquids with vapor pressures up to 11 psia are usually stored 
in floating roof tanks because such vessels have lower emission rates 
than fixed roof tanks within this vapor pressure range. Emissions from 
storage vessels typically occur as working losses. As a storage vessel 
is filled, HAP-laden vapors inside the tank become displaced and can be 
emitted to the atmosphere. Also, diurnal temperature changes result in 
breathing losses of organic HAP-laden vapors from storage vessels.
3. Wastewater Streams
    Many refinery process units generate wastewater streams that 
contain HAP. Significant wastewater sources include the crude desalting 
unit, process waters, steam stripper blowdown, and storage tank draws. 
Organic HAP compounds in the wastewater can volatilize and be emitted 
to the atmosphere from wastewater collection and treatment units if 
these units are open or vented to the atmosphere. Potential sources of 
HAP emissions associated with wastewater collection and treatment 
systems include drains, manholes, trenches, surface impoundments, oil/
water separators, storage and treatment tanks, junction boxes, sumps, 
basins, and biological treatment systems.
4. Equipment Leaks
    Equipment leaks are releases of process fluid or vapor from 
processing equipment, including pump and compressor seals, process 
valves, pressure relief devices, open-ended lines, flanges and other 
connectors, agitators, and instrumentation systems. These releases 
occur primarily at the interface between connected components of 
equipment or in sealing mechanisms.
5. Gasoline Loading Racks
    Loading racks are the collection of equipment, including loading 
arms, pumps, meters, shutoff valves, relief valves, and other piping 
and valves used to fill gasoline cargo tanks. Emissions from loading 
racks may be

[[Page 50720]]

released when gasoline loaded into cargo tanks displaces vapors inside 
these containers.
6. Marine Vessel Loading Operations
    Marine vessel loading operations load and unload liquid commodities 
in bulk, such as crude oil, gasoline and other fuels, and naphtha. The 
cargo is pumped from the terminal's large, above-ground storage tanks 
through a network of pipes and into a storage compartment (tank) on the 
vessel. The HAP emission result from the displaced vapors during the 
filling operation.
7. Cooling Towers
    Cooling tower systems include closed loop recirculation systems and 
once through systems that receive non-contact process water from a heat 
exchanger for the purposes of cooling the process water prior to 
returning the water to the heat exchanger or discharging the water to 
another process unit, waste management unit, or to a receiving water 
body. Cooling towers typically use force draft air ventilation of the 
process water to cool the process water. Heat exchangers occasionally 
develop leaks which result in process fluids entering the cooling tower 
process water. The HAP and other organics in these process fluids are 
then emitted to the atmosphere due to stripping in the cooling tower. 
Cooling tower emissions arising from the addition of chemicals to the 
cooling water to prevent fouling or to decontaminate the water are not 
covered by this standard, but are instead covered under the Industrial 
Process Cooling Tower NESHAP.
D. What hazardous air pollutants are emitted from petroleum refineries?
    The specific HAP emitted by petroleum refineries varies by facility 
and process operations but can include a variety of organic and 
inorganic compounds and metals. Emissions originate from various 
process vents, storage vessels, wastewater streams, loading racks, 
marine tank vessel loading operations, and equipment leaks associated 
with refining facilities. Process vents, wastewater streams, and 
storage vessels generally emit organic HAP. Organic compounds account 
for the majority of the total mass of HAP emitted by petroleum refinery 
sources, with toluene, hexane, mixed and individual isomers of xylenes, 
benzene, methanol, methyl tert-butyl ether, and ethyl benzene 
accounting for about 90 percent of the HAP mass emitted. Other HAP 
emissions may include biphenyl, 1,3-butadiene, cumene, carbon 
disulfide, carbonyl sulfide, cresols, ethylene dibromide, 1,2 
dichloroethane, diethanolamine, ethylene glycol, methyl isobutyl 
ketone, 2,2,4-trimethylpentane, naphthalene, and phenol.
    The HAP emitted from emissions sources subject to the Refinery MACT 
1 rule are associated with a variety of health effects, depending on 
the specific pollutants involved and the degree and duration of 
exposure. The range of adverse health effects include cancer and a 
number of other chronic health disorders (e.g., aplastic anemia, 
panctopenia, pernicious anemia, lung structural changes) and a number 
of acute health disorders (difficulty in breathing, upper respiratory 
tract irritation, conjunctivitis, tremors, delirium, coma, 
convulsions). More details on the health effects of individual HAP may 
be found in numerous sources, including http://www.epa.gov/iris.html, 
http://www.atsdr.cdc.govlmrls.html, and http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/acute_rels/index.html.

E. What does the NESHAP require?

    The Refinery MACT 1 rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) applies to 
petroleum refining process units and their collocated emissions points 
that are part of a plant site that is a major source and that emit or 
have equipment containing or contacting one or more of the 28 HAP 
listed in Table 1 in the appendix to the rule. Section 63.640(c) of the 
rule specifies that emissions points subject to the rule include an 
individual miscellaneous process vent, storage vessel, wastewater 
stream, or equipment leak associated with a petroleum refining process 
unit; an individual storage vessel or equipment leak associated with a 
bulk gasoline terminal or pipeline breakout station classified under 
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 2911 located at a 
petroleum refinery; a gasoline loading rack classified under SIC code 
2911 located at a petroleum refinery and under common control with the 
refinery; or a marine tank vessel loading operation located at a 
petroleum refinery. The rule establishes applicability criteria to 
distinguish between Group 1 emissions points and Group 2 emissions 
points. Controls are required only for emissions points meeting the 
Group 1 criteria. Group 2 emissions points are subject to recordkeeping 
requirements only. We estimate that the 1995 rule reduces HAP emissions 
by 53,000 tons per year (tpy)--a 59-percent reduction (60 FR 43248, 
August 18, 1995).
    Section 63.641 of the rule defines Group 1 miscellaneous process 
vents as those with volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions equal to 
or greater than 33 kilograms per day (kg/day) (72 pounds per day (lb/
day)) for existing sources and 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) for new sources. 
Under Sec.  63.643, the owner or operator of a Group 1 miscellaneous 
process vent must reduce organic HAP using a flare that meets the 
equipment specifications in 40 CFR 63.11 of the general provisions 
(subpart A) or use a control device to reduce organic HAP emissions by 
98 weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 parts per million by 
volume (ppmv dry basis, corrected to 3 percent oxygen).
    Section 63.646(a) of the Refinery MACT 1 rule requires each Group 1 
storage vessel to comply with 40 CFR 63.119 through 63.121 of subpart G 
(National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From 
the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry for Process 
Vents, Storage Vessels, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater). A Group 1 
storage vessel at an existing refinery has a design storage capacity 
and maximum true vapor pressure greater than the values specified in 
the existing rule. Under 40 CFR 63.119, a Group 1 storage vessel must 
be equipped with an internal floating roof with proper seals, an 
external floating roof with proper seals, an external floating roof 
converted to an internal floating roof with proper seals, or a closed 
vent system to a control device that reduces HAP emissions by 95 
percent or to 20 ppmv. Storage vessels at existing sources are not 
subject to certain equipment specifications and inspection requirements 
for automatic bleeder vents, gaskets, slotted membranes, and sleeve 
seals. See 40 CFR 63.640(c). The requirements for a Group 1 storage 
vessel at a new refinery apply to tanks with a smaller design capacity 
and lower vapor pressures and HAP liquid concentration. These tanks 
also must comply with the storage vessel requirements in 40 CFR part 
63, subpart G.
    Each Group 1 wastewater stream at a new or existing refinery must 
comply with 40 CFR 61.340 through 61.355 of the National Emission 
Standard for Benzene Waste Operations (BWON) in 40 CFR part 61, subpart 
FF. Group 1 wastewater streams are those wastewater streams (at a 
petroleum refinery that has a total annual benzene loading of 10 
megagrams per year (Mg/yr) or greater) that have a flow rate greater 
than 0.02 liters per minute, a benzene concentration of 10 parts per 
million by weight (ppmw) or greater, and are not exempt from control 
requirements under the BWON. The BWON requires affected waste streams

[[Page 50721]]

to comply with one of several options for controlling benzene emissions 
from waste management units and treating the benzene containing wastes.
    The Refinery MACT 1 rule requires the owner or operator of an 
existing refinery to comply with the equipment leak provisions in 40 
CFR part 60, subpart VV (Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks 
of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry) for 
all equipment in organic HAP service. The term ``in organic HAP 
service'' means that a piece of equipment either contains or contacts a 
fluid (liquid or gas) that is at least 5 percent by weight of total 
organic HAP. The owner or operator of a new facility must comply with a 
modified version of 40 CFR part 63, subpart H (National Emission 
Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment Leaks). 
Both subpart VV of part 60 and modified subpart H of part 63 require 
inspection and repair of leaking equipment. The leak definition under 
subpart VV that triggers repair requirements is an instrument reading 
of 10,000 ppmv. In the modified version of subpart H, the leak 
definition for pumps and valves begins at 10,000 ppmv but drops to 
2,000 ppmv or 1,000 ppmv, respectively, in subsequent years.
    Group 1 gasoline loading racks at refineries must comply with the 
requirements of the National Emission Standards for Gasoline 
Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout 
Stations) in 40 CFR part 63, subpart R. Marine tank vessel loading 
operations at refineries must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart Y (National Emission Standards for Marine Tank Vessel 
Loading Operations).

III. Summary of Proposed Amendments to NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries

A. What options are we proposing?

    We are proposing regulatory options for storage vessels with 
external floating roofs and regulatory options for an enhanced 
biodegradation unit (EBU) to meet the requirements of CAA sections 
112(f)(2) and (d)(6). We are also proposing options to require a leak 
detection and repair program for cooling towers under section 112(d)(2) 
and (f)(2).
    A detailed summary of the proposed amendments under the 
requirements of CAA section 112(f)(2) and (d)(6) is provided below. 
This section also includes our discussion of the proposal to regulate 
cooling towers under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (f)(2). Our rationale 
for the proposed amendments is provided in section IV of this preamble.

B. What are the proposed requirements to meet CAA sections 112(f)(2) 
and (d)(6) for storage vessels?

    Currently, the Refinery MACT 1 rule requires Group 1 storage 
vessels at an existing source to comply with the requirements in 40 CFR 
63.119 through 63.121 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, except where 
specifically noted. Under 40 CFR 63.640(c) of the rule, storage vessels 
at existing sources are not subject to the requirements in 40 CFR 
63.119(b)(5), (b)(6), (c)(2), and (d)(2) of subpart G. The requirements 
in 40 CFR 63.119(c)(2) contain equipment specifications for storage 
tanks with external floating roofs.
    EPA is proposing two regulatory options for storage vessels. We 
believe that either of these options might achieve an ample margin of 
safety as described in the Benzene NESHAP. The Agency's basis for 
selecting one of these options in the final rule would reflect our 
consideration of the relative risk reduction and cost of the options, 
as well as consideration of other relevant factors as identified in the 
Benzene NESHAP. For existing storage vessels, Option 1 requires no 
revisions to the Refinery MACT 1 rule to meet the requirements of CAA 
section 112(d)(6) and (f)(2). Option 2 would remove the current 
exemption for the requirements in 40 CFR 63.119(c)(2)(ix) and (x) for 
slotted guide poles. Removal of this exemption would require the owner 
or operator of a Group 1 storage vessel at an existing source that is 
equipped with an external floating roof to equip each slotted guide 
pole with a gasketed sliding cover or flexible fabric sleeve seal and a 
gasketed cover or other device which closes off the liquid surface from 
the atmosphere. The proposed amendments also revise related inspection 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.646(e) and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 
63.654(f)(1)(A)(1), (g)(1), and (g)(3)(iii)(A) to account for the 
requirements for slotted guide poles.

C. What are the proposed requirements to meet CAA sections 112(f)(2) 
and (d)(6) for EBU used to treat Group 1 wastewater streams?

    EPA is proposing two regulatory options for EBU. We believe that 
either of these options might achieve an ample margin of safety as 
described in the Benzene NESHAP. The Agency's basis for selecting one 
of these options in the final rule would reflect our consideration of 
the relative risk reduction and cost of the options, as well as 
consideration of other relevant factors as identified in the Benzene 
NESHAP.
    Option 1 requires no revisions to the Refinery MACT 1 rule to meet 
the requirements of CAA sections 112(f)(2) and (d)(6). Option 2 for EBU 
proposes to revise the wastewater provisions in the Refinery MACT 1 
rule to add a specific performance standard and monitoring requirement 
for EBU. The proposed amendments require owners or operators to operate 
and maintain EBU to achieve a minimum treatment efficiency for benzene 
of 90 percent. The owner or operator would be required to conduct an 
initial performance demonstration using the procedures in 40 CFR part 
63, appendix C (Determination of the Fraction Biodegraded (Fbio) in a 
Biological Treatment Unit). Based on the demonstration results, 
facilities would establish operating limits for the mixed liquor 
volatile suspended solids (MLVSS) concentration and the food-to-
microorganism ratio according to the rule requirements. The operating 
parameters would be monitored at least once a week. Exceedance of an 
operating limit would be a deviation that must be reported in the 
periodic (semiannual) report required by 40 CFR 63.654.

D. What are the proposed requirements for cooling towers under CAA 
sections 112(d)(2) and (f)(2)?

    Because the Refinery MACT 1 rule does not address HAP emissions 
from cooling towers, we are proposing to regulate cooling towers under 
CAA section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) in this action. As we are proposing 
later in the preamble, once cooling towers have been regulated pursuant 
to CAA section (d)(2) and (d)(3), no additional controls are needed to 
provide an adequate margin of safety under CAA section (f)(2).
    We are proposing work practice standards for cooling towers which 
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 weight percent 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. The two options that are being 
co-proposed differ in the detection methods used to identify leaks for 
existing sources, and in the frequency of monitoring for new sources. 
The first option reflects our MACT floor analysis and would reject 
imposing controls beyond the MACT

[[Page 50722]]

floor. Under this option, the owner or operator of existing source 
cooling towers receiving cooling water from heat exchangers in organic 
HAP service would be required to monitor chemical addition rates or 
other surrogate indicators of leaks. If the surrogate indicators 
suggest a leak, the owner or operator would conduct sampling and 
analyses to determine if the indicated leak is an organic HAP leak. For 
existing sources, an organic HAP leak is defined as an organic HAP 
concentration in the cooling tower water of 1 ppmw or greater. Owner 
and operators of new source cooling towers receiving cooling water from 
heat exchangers in organic HAP service would be required to conduct 
quarterly sampling and analyses to identify any organic HAP leaks into 
the cooling tower water and to take appropriate corrective action to 
fix the leaks.
    Under the second option, we would select a control option based on 
our beyond the floor analysis and would require the owner or operator 
of new and existing sources to conduct monthly sampling and analyses to 
identify any organic HAP leaks into the cooling tower water.
    Under both options, a leak into the cooling tower water would be 
defined as either a mass leak rate of 100 pounds of total organic HAP 
per day or greater or a mass leak rate of 10 pounds of any single 
organic HAP per day or greater. Under both options, if a leak is 
detected, the owner or operator would be required to identify the 
source of the leak as soon as practicable but not later than 30 days 
after receiving the sampling results. Unless a delay in repair is 
allowed under the proposed requirements, the owner or operator would be 
required to repair the leak no later than 30 days after identifying the 
source of the leak. The proposed rule would allow a delay in repair of 
the leak if repair of the leak would require the process unit served by 
the leaking heat exchanger to be shut down, and the shutdown would 
result in greater emissions than the potential emissions from the 
cooling tower leak from the time the leaking heat exchanger was first 
identified and the next planned shutdown. The owner or operator would 
be required to continue monthly monitoring and repair the heat 
exchanger within 30 days if sampling results show that the projected 
emissions from the cooling tower exceed the startup and shutdown 
emissions estimates. The proposed rule would also allow a delay in 
repair if the necessary parts are not reasonably available. In this 
case, the owner or operator would be required to complete the repair as 
soon as practicable upon receiving the necessary parts, but no later 
than 120 days after identifying the leaking heat exchanger. All new or 
existing refineries with a cooling tower system also would be required 
to prepare and follow a monitoring plan for cooling towers. The plan is 
necessary to document emissions potential for employing the delay of 
repair provisions.

E. What other revisions are we proposing?

    We are also proposing clarifications to the requirements in the 
Refinery MACT 1 rule. The proposed amendments clarify that the control 
requirements for gasoline loading racks apply to Group 1 gasoline 
loading racks. ``Group 1 gasoline loading rack'' is the term used to 
define the affected emissions source subject to emissions control 
requirements. This clarification would amend 40 CFR 63.640 of subpart 
CC.

F. What is the compliance schedule for the proposed amendments?

    The proposed amendments to the Refinery MACT 1 rule would become 
effective on the date of publication of the final amendments in the 
Federal Register. Under section 112 (i)(1) of the CAA, any new facility 
would be required to comply upon startup. For existing sources, CAA 
section 112(i)(3)(A) requires compliance no later than 3 years after 
the effective date of the standard. The proposed 3-year compliance date 
is appropriate because it will allow facilities time to perform 
monitoring and install required controls. For cooling towers, we are 
allowing 3 years to identify which towers are affected, to identify the 
ability to repair these cooling towers without a process unit 
turnaround, to determine the HAP emissions that would occur if a 
shutdown is required to control a heat exchanger leak, and to establish 
an appropriate monitoring program that meets the requirements of the 
proposed rule. For EBU, 3 years is necessary to perform tests of 
benzene destruction efficiency, to calculate the overall effectiveness 
of the EBU using the procedures in Appendix C, to establish appropriate 
monitoring provisions and install and test necessary equipment, and to 
make modifications to the EBU if necessary to increase the efficiency 
of the system to meet the proposed requirements. For storage tanks, 3 
years are being proposed to allow flexibility in the addition of the 
guidepole controls for safety and operational concerns. In promulgating 
similar requirements for storage tanks, we have extended the compliance 
time until the next scheduled turnaround requiring emptying and 
degassing of the tank or 10 years, whichever is sooner. This is because 
the emissions that occur during emptying and degassing exceed the HAP 
emission reductions that would occur as a result of applying the 
controls. We are requesting comments on whether it is necessary to 
empty and degas tanks for retrofitting the proposed controls.

IV. Rationale for Proposed Amendments

A. What actions are we proposing under CAA section 112(d)(2)?

    We did not establish standards for cooling towers in the Refinery 
MACT 1 rule. Industry emissions information and data demonstrate that 
organic HAP emissions from cooling towers at petroleum refineries are 
significant, and we are proposing to add emissions standards for 
organic HAP from cooling towers at petroleum refineries under the 
authority of CAA section 112(d)(2). Because the emissions from cooling 
towers are not emitted through a stack and are not practically 
measurable, we have established work practice standards as provided for 
under CAA section 112(h)(2) to address these emissions.
    In evaluating the MACT floor, we must determine the average 
emissions limitations achieved by the top 12 percent of the affected 
sources. We have often interpreted the average of the top 12 percent as 
the performance of the 6th percentile unit. Of the 150 refineries, the 
6th percentile is represented by the 9th ranked top-performing unit. 
Based on available information, we have determined that the top 12 
percent of the industry currently implements cooling tower monitoring 
programs to detect and repair leaks of process fluids into cooling 
water using chemical usage rates or other surrogate indicators of heat 
exchanger leaks. Therefore, we have determined that the MACT floor for 
existing cooling towers is monitoring of surrogate indicators of heat 
exchanger leaks in cooling water and to repair leaks. The nationwide 
total annual cost (TAC) to conduct cooling tower monitoring of 
surrogate indicators and repairs is estimated to be $750,000. This cost 
includes a product recovery credit of $1.2 million, and includes no 
costs for repair of heat exchangers under that assumption that refiners 
would repair leaking heat exchangers when they are made aware of the 
leak as part of their routine operations. For large leaks, reasons for 
repairing leaks immediately could be safety concerns or the recovery of 
large product losses. For smaller leaks, these concerns might not be 
valid

[[Page 50723]]

and therefore refiners might incur additional costs beyond routine 
operations. EPA requests comment on the extent to which immediate 
repairs would be based on these concerns, and on typical costs of 
repair. The HAP emissions reduction for the MACT floor is estimated to 
be 373 tpy total HAP and 28.3 tpy of benzene. The HAP baseline for 
cooling towers was estimated to be 3,024 tpy.
    The MACT floor for new sources is represented by the best-
performing similar unit. Based on all of the information available, the 
best performance standard currently being implemented is direct organic 
chemical concentration monitoring of their Refinery MACT 1 cooling 
towers on a quarterly basis. Based on emissions data for the facility 
implementing this program, we have determined that the performance of 
this cooling tower monitoring program would limit leaks into the 
cooling water to less than 10 lbs/day of a single organic HAP and less 
than 100 lbs/day of total organic HAP. Therefore, we have determined 
that the MACT floor for new cooling towers is quarterly organic 
chemical-specific monitoring with an action level of 10 lbs/day or 
greater of a single organic HAP and 100 lbs/day or greater of total 
organic HAP.
    EPA has concluded, based on available data, that existing industry 
monitoring of surrogate parameters will only detect large leaks, which 
would miss leaks that would generate significant organic HAP emissions 
(see memorandum to docket: Cooling towers: Control Options and Impact 
Estimates). EPA analyzed the amount of HAP that could be emitted from 
cooling water based on HAP concentration data and flow rates for 
cooling towers at several petroleum refinery facilities and decided to 
structure regulatory options to account for variable cooling water flow 
and minimum detection limit capabilities of 10 parts per billion by 
weight (ppbw) for the concentrations of individual HAP in water. For 
example, at a petroleum refinery with total organic HAP concentration 
of 30 ppbw and a cooling water flow rate of 40,000 gallons per minute 
(gal/min), the potential organic HAP emissions from the cooling tower 
are 14 lbs/day or over 2.5 tons if the leak lasted for a year.
    As part of our beyond the floor analysis, we considered 
alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor option for existing and 
new sources. For existing and new sources, we identified two 
alternatives that would require monitoring by collecting a cooling 
water sample and analyzing for speciated HAP. In both alternatives, the 
cost of the monitoring is likely less than the value of the product 
that would no longer be lost to the atmosphere. Additionally, we have 
not included repair costs in any of the options as we considered these 
costs to be routine operational costs. The costs discussed also apply 
to new as well as existing sources, since there are no retrofit issues 
associated with the proposed monitoring program.
    One alternative more stringent than the MACT floor includes 
quarterly monitoring of cooling water by water sampling and a leak 
definition of greater than or equal to 10 pounds of any single organic 
HAP or greater than or equal to 100 pounds organic HAP per day and 
results in a total annualized cost saving of $2.1 million. This savings 
includes a product recovery credit of $4.4 million. The organic HAP 
emissions reduction for this alternative regulatory option 1 is 1,330 
tpy and the cost-effectiveness is -$1,600/ton.
    Another alternative more stringent than the MACT floor includes 
monthly monitoring of cooling water by water sampling and a leak 
definition of greater than or equal to 10 pounds of any single organic 
HAP or greater than or equal to 100 pounds organic HAP per day. The 
nationwide TAC is a savings of $1.6 million, including a recovery 
credit of $5.7 million. The organic HAP emissions reduction for this 
alternative is 1,720 tpy. The cost-effectiveness of this alternative is 
-$920/ton.
    EPA is co-proposing two options for finalizing MACT standards for 
new and existing cooling towers. Option 1 represents the MACT floor for 
new and existing units, as discussed above. Option 2 is more stringent 
than the MACT floor and is described above as requiring monthly (as 
opposed to quarterly) monitoring of individual (speciated) organic HAP. 
Table 1 of this preamble summarizes nationwide impacts of the proposed 
options.

                                                 Table 1.--Nationwide Impacts for Cooling Tower Options
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Product                                       Cost-effectiveness  ($/ton)
                                                            Monitoring       recovery      Total annual   HAP  emissions -------------------------------
                         Option                           cost  ($1,000)      credit      cost  ($1,000/   (tons/yr HAP)
                                                                            ($1,000/yr)         yr)                           Overall       Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................................               0               0               0           3,024               0               0
1 (MACT Floor)..........................................           1,990          -1,240             750           2,647           1,980           1,980
2 (Beyond the floor)....................................           4,100          -5,680          -1,590           1,304            -920         -1,750
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The monthly monitoring alternative is projected to result in a positive incremental cost-effectiveness of $1,400 per ton (as compared to the
  quarterly alternative).

    This analysis indicates that Option 2 will result in an overall 
cost savings. Further, the incremental cost-effectiveness of Option 2 
monitoring compared to Option 1 is a negative $1,750/ton of HAP 
emissions controlled, which indicates a cost savings above the MACT 
floor option and is reasonable given these assumptions. However, there 
are some fundamental assumptions that may affect this analysis, for 
example, the amount of recovery credit generated by each program is 
uncertain and we did not consider repair costs or production downtime 
costs in our analysis. Therefore, we are co-proposing Option 1, the 
MACT floor option, and Option 2 in the event that the costs and 
feasibility of going beyond the floor are not reasonable. We are 
requesting comments on this analysis and on these options.
    Additionally, under both options, a delay in repair is allowed 
under the proposed requirements if repair of the leak would require the 
process unit served by the leaking heat exchanger to be shut down, and 
the shutdown would result in greater HAP emissions than the projected 
HAP emissions from the cooling tower leak or if the necessary parts are 
not reasonably available. We request comments on other possible 
criteria for delay of repair in addition to these. In addition, we are 
requesting comments on another option for heat exchanger systems that 
cannot be repaired without a shutdown that would allow delay of repair 
until the next unit shutdown. This allowance could be contingent on 
factors such as the level of HAP emissions from the cooling tower or 
the duration to the next scheduled shutdown. Finally, we

[[Page 50724]]

request comments on tracking the HAP emissions that occur during the 
delayed repair and relationship between this monitoring and emission 
measurement and the reportable quantity requirements under CERCLA.

B. How did we estimate residual risk?

    EPA modeled available data on the emissions from petroleum 
refineries to assess the risks associated with petroleum refinery HAP 
emissions after compliance with the Refinery MACT 1 standard but prior 
to the proposed MACT amendments for cooling towers. Consistent with 
previous residual risk assessments, standard air toxics risk assessment 
practices and principles were used to conduct assessments of potential 
chronic and acute exposures and risks for both inhalation and non-
inhalation pathways. In addition, the potential for an adverse 
environmental effect arising from these sources was also evaluated. 
Complete documentation for the methods used and results from the risk 
assessment is available in a report entitled, draft Residual Risk 
Assessment for MACT 1 Petroleum Refining Sources, which is available in 
the docket.
    Emissions data for 153 petroleum refineries nationwide were 
developed starting from the EPA's 2002 National Emissions Inventory 
(NEI), incorporating site-specific emissions and source information 
which were provided by the American Petroleum Institute (API) for 22 
facilities. The emissions database was published for public comment 
through an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). Comments and 
corrections to the database received during the public comment period 
were evaluated by technical reviewers for quality and consistency with 
engineering data; valid corrections to the database were incorporated 
for an additional 50 facilities (beyond the 22). No comments or 
corrections were received on the emissions or source data for 81 
facilities.\2\ The 153 refineries included in the database are believed 
to be all of the sources in the category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For an explanation of the corrections we accepted and the 
corrections we did not accept, see docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What are the residual risks from petroleum refineries?

    Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the results of the inhalation 
risk assessment. These estimates characterize the lifetime risk of 
developing cancer or noncancer health effects for individuals living 
within 50 kilometers (km) of any petroleum refinery.

 Table 2.--Risk Estimates Due to HAP Exposure Based on 70-Year Exposure
                                Duration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Results for
                                                           refinery MACT
                        Parameter                            1 source
                                                             category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual lifetime cancer risk (in 1 million)..              70
Maximum hazard index \1\ (chronic respiratory effects)..             0.3
Estimated size of population at risk....................      90,000,000
    greater than 1-in-1 million.........................         460,000
    greater than 10-in-1 million........................           6,000
    greater than 100-in-1 million.......................               0
Annual cancer incidence (number of cases per year)......       0.04-0.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If the hazard index (HI) is calculated to be less than or equal to
  1, then no adverse heath effects are expected as a result of the
  exposure.

    We estimate that approximately 90 million people live within 50 km 
of a refinery. Results from the risk assessment indicate that none of 
the facilities posed a cancer risk greater than 100-in-1 million. 
Approximately 60 percent of the refineries have a maximum individual 
lifetime cancer risk (MIR) of greater than 1-in-1 million, and about 14 
percent are associated with a MIR greater than 10-in-1 million. The 
highest MIR value at any facility is 70-in-1 million. The cumulative 
cancer incidence from all MACT 1 refinery emission sources is estimated 
to be between 0.04 and 0.09 cases per year, or 1 case every 11 to 25 
years. Benzene, naphthalene, polycyclic organic matter, and ethylene 
dibromide emissions are responsible for most of the estimated cancer 
incidence. Since the benzene cancer unit risk estimate (URE) is 
reported as a range of values, each end of which is considered to be 
equally plausible, the range of incidence reflects calculated risks 
using either end of the range, as well as different methods for 
extrapolating the risks from subsets of facility emission estimates. 
Additionally, the maximum noncancer hazard index (HI) associated with 
emissions from any refinery is estimated to be less than 1. This allows 
us to conclude that human inhalation exposures to pollution from 
Refinery MACT 1 sources are without appreciable risk of chronic 
noncancer health effects, and that direct atmospheric exposures of 
these pollutants to ecological receptors should not result in any 
potential environmental impact.
    We performed acute screening-level assessments of potential acute 
impacts of concern on each facility and refined those assessments by 
analyzing aerial photographs of facilities with potential exceedances 
of acute benchmarks to determine which potential exceedances were truly 
outside facility boundaries. The results indicated that 12 facilities 
show a potential to exceed 1-hour California acute Reference Exposure 
Levels (REL) for 3 pollutants (benzene, acrolein, and arsenic). The 
acute 1-hour REL is defined as the concentration level at or below 
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a 1-hour exposure. 
Acute REL values are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals 
in a population by including margins of safety. The highest potential 
exceedance of any REL was for acrolein, and the REL was exceeded by a 
factor of 70. Other pollutants showing potential exceedances of the REL 
value are benzene (exceeded by a factor of 40), and arsenic (exceeded 
by a factor of 30). In spite of the fact that potential exceedances of 
these 3 acute REL values are shown by this analysis, none of the 
facilities investigated showed any potential to exceed available mild 
1-hour Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL-1) for any of the modeled 
pollutants. The AEGL-1 is the airborne concentration of a substance 
above which it is predicted that the general population, including 
susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, 
irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects.
    Given the definitions of the acute REL and the AEGL-1, it is 
reasonable to conclude that (1) Health effects in humans could occur as 
exposures increase above the AEGL-1, and (2) exposures below the REL 
are very unlikely to result in adverse health effects. Potential 
exposures in between these values (which is what this analysis shows) 
are more difficult to interpret in terms of health risk. That is, these 
potential exposures are in the ``gray area'' of uncertainty where the 
true threshold for adverse effects lies, and thus it is not clear if 
adverse effects could actually occur at the levels determined by this 
analysis. Further, we did not refine these results by incorporating 
actual site-specific short-term emission variability into the analysis, 
so these results are believed to be very conservative and should be 
interpreted with care.
    We also performed a screening-level multipathway risk assessment on 
the

[[Page 50725]]

emissions of mercury, cadmium, lead, and polycyclic aromatic 
hydrocarbons (PAH), all compounds which are considered to be persistent 
and bioaccumulative HAP. Based on the results of this screening, 
noncancer human health risks due to the ingestion of these pollutants 
were all below levels considered to be without appreciable risk of 
adverse health effect. One of these pollutants, PAH, showed a potential 
to cause individual cancer risks as high as 40-in-1 million, exceeding 
1-in-1 million, but less than 100-in-1 million. However, because of our 
inability to accurately speciate and estimate risks for individual 
compounds within the PAH class, we believe that this result is highly 
conservative, and that the true risks associated with these PAH are 
likely to be less than 1-in-1 million.
    For the ecological assessment, two exceedances (cadmium and PAH) of 
ecological toxicity benchmarks were observed when examining the 
predicted TRIM.FaTE media concentrations (see Draft Residual Risk 
Assessment for MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources document). Given the 
conservative nature of the screening scenario, the results of the 
comparisons and a review of additional information available on the 
ecological toxicity of cadmium and PAH, we concluded that it is highly 
unlikely that these two exceedances are of concern. Overall, the 
potential for emissions from petroleum refinery sources to result in an 
adverse environmental impact is likely to be very low for all 
persistent bioaccumulative HAP emitted.

D. What are the uncertainties in risk assessments?

    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for the petroleum refineries 
source categories affected by this proposal. A full discussion of 
uncertainties is found in the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 
Petroleum Refining Sources (August 2007), available in the docket.
    Although the development of the risk and technology review (RTR) 
database involved quality assurance/quality control processes, the 
accuracy of emissions values will vary depending on the source of the 
data present, incomplete or missing data, errors in estimating 
emissions values, and other factors. Our review of the data indicates 
that there may be a low bias in reported emissions for many facilities. 
It appears that data from several processes and operations are not 
included in the reported emissions from many facilities. These include 
exclusion of upset, malfunction, startup, and shutdown events as well 
as omission of emissions sources that are unexpected, not measured, or 
not considered in inventories, such as leaks in heat exchanger systems; 
emissions from process sewers and wastewater systems; fugitive 
emissions from delayed coking units; and emissions from tank roof 
landings. Further, the emissions values considered in this analysis are 
annual totals for a single calendar year (2002) and do not reflect 
actual fluctuations during the course of the year, as well as 
variations from year to year. Finally, although we have performed a 
significant amount of quality control on the data set, for many 
facilities the physical characteristics (i.e., stack height, physical 
location) of the reported sources may be inaccurate for detailed risk 
characterization purposes.
    We recently discovered that certain area source location attributes 
may have been incorrectly incorporated into our atmospheric dispersion 
simulations, resulting in a positional translation error which may 
locate certain emission points closer to or farther from potentially-
exposed populations. While the impact of this error has not been fully 
evaluated, we believe that it will not dramatically alter the MIR value 
for the source category, and that it will have very little impact on 
the total cancer incidence. Nonetheless, we will investigate and 
correct this error between proposal and promulgation of the final 
petroleum refineries MACT 1 residual risk decision and will consider 
any impact of this error in our final decision.
    The uncertainties in our risk assessment can be generally divided 
into uncertainties in our ability to characterize exposures and 
uncertainties in our ability to characterize dose-response. We believe 
that the primary source of uncertainty in our exposure assessment is 
the uncertainty in the underlying emissions data, which are generally 
thought to be biased low, based on recent studies indicating that 
emission points such as cooling towers and wastewater treatment units 
are historically underestimated or even omitted from petroleum refinery 
emission inventories. Elsewhere in this notice, we request comment on 
methods that might reduce these emission uncertainties through moderate 
efforts to conduct ambient monitoring. The assessment uses 
toxicological dose-response values typically extrapolated from high-
dose animal exposure or occupational exposures, to estimate risk. 
Consistent with EPA guidance, RfCs are developed by using order-of-
magnitude factors to account for uncertainties in developing values 
protective of sensitive subpopulations. Most of the URE in this 
assessment were developed using linearized low-dose extrapolation. 
Risks could be overestimated if the true dose-response relationship 
(which is usually unknown) is sublinear. Impacts have been extrapolated 
from short-duration, high-dose animal or occupational exposures to 
longer durations and lower doses, using uncertain interspecies scaling 
methods. In general, EPA considers these URE's to be upper-bound 
estimates based on the method of extrapolation, meaning they represent 
a plausible upper limit to the true value. (Note that this is usually 
not a true statistical confidence limit.) The true risk is therefore 
likely to be less, could be as low as zero, but also could be greater. 
As previously noted, benzene cancer risks were estimated from the 
reported URE range, which is considered to be based on maximum 
likelihood exposure and risk estimates.

E. What is our proposed decision under CAA Section 112(f)?

    Based on the emissions data we have, we estimate that the MIR 
associated with exposures to HAP emissions from the sources covered by 
the Refinery MACT 1 rule is 70-in-1 million. Because the MIR is less 
than 100-in-1 million, the risk is acceptable. However, since the MIR 
is greater than 1-in-1 million, we must consider whether to require 
additional controls to protect public health with an ample margin of 
safety.
    In making the ample margin of safety determination, we consider the 
estimate of health risk and other health-related information (such as 
the weight of evidence for carcinogenicity or the severity of the 
noncancer health effect) along with additional factors relating to the 
appropriate level of control, including costs and economic impacts of 
controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and other relevant 
factors, consistent with the approach of the 1989 Benzene NESHAP, as 
summarized earlier.
    In developing our proposed options under CAA section 112(f)(2), we 
considered control options for each of the Refinery MACT 1 emissions 
sources. In developing the control options, we wanted to target further 
emission reductions to the extent possible to reduce public health 
risks. The following provides a discussion of the control options that 
we evaluated for each of the Refinery MACT 1 emission sources.

[[Page 50726]]

1. Control Options Considered
a. Miscellaneous Process Vents, Gasoline Loading Racks, and Marine 
Vessel Loading Control Measures
    Group 1 miscellaneous process vents and transfer loading operations 
(gasoline loading racks and marine vessel loading) are regulated by 
performance standards based on the use of technologies such as thermal 
oxidizers and carbon. We did not identify any other technically 
feasible control technologies that would reduce HAP emissions beyond 
these levels. Therefore, the only way to reduce residual risk would be 
to change the applicability (i.e., certain Group 2 emission points 
under the original rule would become Group 1 emission points under a 
revised rule). We could not identify any cost-effective control 
options; the control option based on lowering the Group 1 thresholds 
exceeds $40,000 per ton of HAP reduced and $400,000 per ton of benzene 
reduced.
b. Equipment Leak Control Measures
    For equipment leaks, we evaluated reducing the leak definition and 
requiring monitoring of open-ended lines. The cost-effectiveness of 
this option is approximately $20,000 per ton of HAP reduced and 
approximately $300,000 per ton of benzene reduced. We rejected these 
options due to their unreasonable cost-effectiveness.
c. Storage Vessel Control Measures
    For storage vessels, we evaluated two control alternatives for 
Group 1 external floating roof storage vessels. First, we considered 
requiring a gasketed sliding cover or a flexible fabric sleeve and 
requiring a gasketed float or other device which closes off the liquid 
surface from the atmosphere for slotted guide poles. Next, we 
considered requiring geodesic domes. The slotted guide pole sleeve 
control option would reduce HAP by 1,046 tpy and benzene emissions by 
105 tpy. The annualized cost of this control option would be completely 
offset by the value of the organic products that would not be emitted 
by the addition of controls. The geodesic dome control option is not 
cost-effective when added to the proposed requirement for slotted guide 
pole sleeves.
d. Wastewater Control Measures
    For refinery wastewater systems, the refinery MACT standard is 
based on the BWON requirements (55 FR 8346, 58 FR 3095). The BWON was 
developed under the two-step Benzene NESHAP approach and at that time 
we concluded that the controls provided an ample margin of safety. 
Because the BWON was incorporated by reference into the Petroleum 
Refineries MACT standard, we must now determine whether the BWON 
protects public health with an ample margin of safety. We believe that 
additional controls may be necessary to ensure an ample margin of 
safety.
    We worked with industry to improve the emissions data used in the 
risk assessment. As part of this effort, refinery trade organizations 
provided EPA with detailed benzene emissions data from 22 petroleum 
refineries expected to be representative of the industry (see docket). 
Most refineries reported zero or minimal emissions from wastewater 
systems. For systems with EBU operating at 92 percent benzene reduction 
efficiency (the benzene reduction we estimated would be achieved in the 
BWON), we would expect benzene emissions on the order of 3 to 10 tpy, 
depending on the load into the system. The wastewater emissions 
reported the 22 refineries are much less than this amount, 
approximately 20 tpy, which leads us to believe that the emission 
estimates exclude or significantly under-report benzene emissions from 
the EBU.
    For well-operated EBU, the benzene emissions are expected to be 
small; however, there are no requirements in the Refinery MACT 1 rule 
or the BWON to demonstrate the proper performance of EBU. Since the 
BWON was promulgated, we have developed procedures and test methods to 
verify the performance of EBU.
    Analysis of the potential emissions and associated risks from EBU 
when the biological treatment efficiency is less than 90 percent 
indicates that these sources could contribute significantly to risk. 
Therefore, we are evaluating a control option that the EBU demonstrate 
a fraction biodegraded of 90 percent or greater for benzene through an 
initial performance demonstration. This would be coupled with weekly 
monitoring of process parameters.
e. Cooling Tower Control Measures
    The Refinery MACT 1 rule does not include provisions for cooling 
towers; we are proposing MACT requirements for cooling towers to 
address total organic HAP emissions under CAA section 112(d)(2). Those 
requirements are described in section IV.A of this preamble. In that 
section, we discuss our floor and beyond the floor analysis pursuant to 
CAA section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). We could not identify any additional 
control requirements that could cost-effectively reduce emissions from 
cooling towers beyond the options described above in our beyond-the-
floor analysis.
    More information of our evaluation of the control options 
considered for the Refinery MACT 1 emission sources is contained in 
memoranda in the docket.
f. Fenceline Monitoring
    Numerous commenters on the ANPR for Phase II risk and technology 
review, including the Residual Risk Coalition representing the American 
Petroleum Institute, expressed concern about the quality and accuracy 
of emissions data available to conduct refined risk assessments. Based 
on our review of these data, we agree that there appears to be 
significant uncertainty, not only in identifying and characterizing 
emissions sources within facilities, but also in the amount and types 
of HAP emitted. In addition to inherent uncertainty in the development 
and use of emission factors, our review of the data indicates that 
there may be a low bias in reported emissions, as discussed earlier. 
Additional discussion of the potential low bias in emission estimates 
is available in the docket.
    Our concerns regarding the potential low bias in the emission 
estimates leads us to request public comment on requiring fenceline 
monitoring of ambient benzene. A fenceline monitoring program may 
provide an effective method to assess the general magnitude of 
uncertainty in facility emissions estimates for benzene. Additional 
information on fenceline monitoring may be found in a technical 
memorandum in the docket.
2. Regulatory Decisions Under CAA Section 112(f)(2)
a. Regulatory Decision for Storage Vessels
    We are proposing two options for our rulemaking on whether to 
establish additional emission standards to protect public health with 
an ample margin of safety. Option 1 is to maintain the current level of 
control in the Refinery MACT 1 rule with no further modifications. 
Option 2 includes controls for storage vessels.
    Impacts of the proposed control option requiring existing storage 
vessels with external floating roofs to install and operate a gasketed 
sliding cover or a flexible fabric sleeve and a gasketed float or other 
device which closes off the liquid surface from the atmosphere for 
slotted guide poles were evaluated and are presented in Table 3 of this 
preamble along with the associated costs and emissions reductions. 
These controls prevent the loss of products from storage vessels. 
Therefore, the

[[Page 50727]]

control costs are offset by the increased product sales that are 
available by this pollution prevention. The VOC credit was calculated 
to be $480 per ton of VOC reduced, resulting in a net cost savings 
presented below. Table 4 of this preamble presents the risk reduction 
associated with the control option for storage vessels.

                      Table 3.--Cost and Emissions Impacts of Option 2 for Storage Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Total
                                    Total      annualized      Product        Total         HAP        Average
      Control requirement          capital    cost without    recovery     annualized    emissions     cost per
                                 investment   recovery  ($   credit  ($     cost  ($       (tpy)      ton of HAP
                                 ($ million)    million)      million)      million)                   ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1 (Baseline)...........          0              0             0             0          1,867            0
Option 2 Storage Vessel                 2.76           1.1          -4.6          -3.5          821       -3,340
 Controls.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 4.--Risk Impacts of Regulatory Alternative for Storage Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Option 2
                Parameter                    Option 1     storage vessel
                                             baseline         control
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk to Most Exposed Individual:
    Cancer (in 1 million)...............              70              70
    Noncancer (HI)......................             0.3             0.3
Size of Population at Cancer Risk :\1\
    > 100-in-1 million..................               0               0
    > 10-in-1 million...................           6,000           5,100
    > 1-in-1 million....................         460,000         393,000
Number of Plants at Cancer Risk Level
 :\1\
    > 100-in-1 million..................               0               0
    > 10-in-1 million...................              21              15
    > 1-in-1 million....................              96              91
Population with HI > 1 \2\..............               0               0
No. of Plants with HI > 1...............               0               0
Cancer Incidence........................        0.04-.09        0.03-.08
Cancer Incidence Reduction (Percent)....              NA           10-25
HAP Emission Reduction (Percent)........              NA             15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Population risks and plant risk bin estimates are based on utilizing
  the high end of the reported cancer URE range for benzene. These
  estimates may be as much as 30 percent lower when estimated using the
  lower end of the benzene URE range.
\2\ If the Hazard Index (HI) is calculated to be less than or equal to
  1, then no adverse health effects are expected as a result of the
  exposure.

    Under option 1, we are proposing to make no changes to the current 
Refinery MACT rule, instead proposing to find that the current level of 
control called for by the existing MACT standard represents both an 
acceptable level of risk (the cancer risk to the most exposed 
individual is approximately 70-in-1 million) and provides public health 
protection with an ample margin of safety. This proposed finding is 
based on considering the uncertainty of the cost impacts of further 
control for individual refineries and the relatively small reductions 
in health risks that are achieved by further control.
    The Agency would conclude under proposed option 1 that the $3.5 
million per year nationwide cost savings is uncertain and that some 
refineries may have positive net costs under Option 2, and that these 
costs would be unreasonable given the minor associated risk reductions. 
Baseline cancer incidence under the current Refinery MACT 1 rule is 
estimated at 0.04 to .09, or 0.07 cases per year, on average. Proposed 
Option 2 would reduce incidence by about 0.01 cases per year. 
Statistically, this level of risk reduction means that Option 2 would 
prevent 1 cancer case every 100 years. Accordingly, if we were to 
conclude that there were not cost savings, the cost of this option 
could be considered to be disproportionate to the level of incidence 
reduction achieved. In addition, the Agency proposes to conclude that 
there are no changes in the distribution of risks reflected in Table 4 
of this preamble (i.e., the MIR is not reduced from 70-in-1 million by 
additional control), and there are no noncancer HI values above 1. 
Consequently, under Option 1, we are proposing that it is not necessary 
to impose any additional controls on the industry to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health.
    Alternatively, we are also proposing that Option 2 provides an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health. This option reduces 
HAP emissions and risks beyond the current MACT standard using controls 
that are technically and economically feasible and that pose no adverse 
environmental impacts. We estimate that these changes would reduce the 
number of people at cancer risk greater than one in a million by 67,000 
individuals and the cancer incidence by 0.01 cases per year (i.e., 
prevent one cancer case every 100 years). Option 2 would reduce 
emissions of VOC by 9,500 tpy. Reducing VOC provides the added benefit 
of reducing ambient concentrations of ozone and may reduce fine 
particulate matter. The annualized cost impacts of Option 2 are 
estimated to be a cost savings of $3.5 million. Our economic analysis 
(summarized later in this preamble) indicates that this cost will have 
little impact on the price and output of petroleum products.
b. Regulatory Decision for EBU
    We are proposing two options for our rulemaking on whether to 
establish additional emission standards to protect public health with 
an ample margin of safety. Option 1 maintains the current level of 
control in the Refinery MACT 1 rule with no further modifications.

[[Page 50728]]

Option 2 requires refinery owners and operators of EBU to demonstrate 
and ensure a fraction biodegraded of 90 percent or greater for benzene 
through an initial performance demonstration coupled with weekly 
monitoring of process parameters to ensure the EBU are achieving the 
ample margin of safety as intended by the BWON rule. Impacts of the 
proposed Option 2 are presented in Table 5.

                            Table 5.--Cost and Emissions Impacts of Option 2 for EBU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Total
                                                              installed       Total         HAP        Average
                    Control requirement                        capital     annualized    emissions     cost per
                                                               cost  ($     cost  ($       (tpy)      ton of HAP
                                                               million)     million)                   ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1 (Baseline)........................................            0           0          5,000            0
Option 2 EBU Performance Demonstration and Monitoring......            0           1.1        3,200          600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Impacts presented in Table 5 assume that 50 percent of EBU may 
degrade benzene at an efficiency of 80 percent. In the development of 
the BWON, we estimated that EBU would achieve between 88 to 93 percent 
control efficiency (Final NESHAP Standards for Waste Operations: Basis 
for Impact Calculations, Feb. 1990), on average, and made the finding 
that the reductions achieved from EBU would result in acceptable risk, 
and we did not require further reductions as part of our ample margin 
of safety decision. At that time, we had no consistent method of 
characterizing the performance of these treatment systems. Since the 
promulgation of the Refinery MACT 1 rule, we have promulgated 
procedures in appendix C of 40 CFR Part 63 to estimate the performance 
of biological treatment systems and have required the use of appendix C 
to demonstrate treatment efficiencies on other industries that use 
biological treatment systems. Our experience with other industries 
suggest that, while high biological treatment efficiencies can be 
achieved for low volatility, oxygenated compounds, achievement of high 
control efficiencies for benzene and other aromatic compounds is more 
difficult. As noted previously, many refineries who provided data to 
the Agency reported zero or minimal emissions from wastewater treatment 
systems, many of which employ EBU for treatment. For EBU operating at 
92 percent benzene reduction efficiency, we would expect benzene 
emissions ranging from 3 to 10 tons/year. The emissions reported by the 
22 refineries are much less than this amount, which leads us to believe 
that the emission estimates exclude or significantly under-report 
benzene emissions from EBU. We specifically request comments on 
additional data that would address these concerns. Further, the use of 
appendix C by refineries at the present time is very limited, and, 
therefore, there is no data to either confirm or refute the validity of 
the original assumption of 92 percent made under the BWON.
    The costs are based on the initial performance demonstration 
averaged over 5 years, so that the annual cost of the performance 
evaluation was $5,000/year. Once the performance evaluation is 
completed, refineries are expected to develop operating limits for the 
minimum MLVSS concentration and the maximum food to microorganism 
ratio, which must be determined on a weekly basis. Although owners and 
operators of EBU are expected to routinely conduct these analyses, we 
estimated that an additional cost of $5,000/year would be incurred for 
these analyses and the associated recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements. Additionally, we assumed that by altering the operating 
characteristics of the unit (e.g., increasing system mixing 
characteristics, increasing biomass or submerged aeration), we assumed 
that all of the units not originally achieving 90 percent treatment 
efficiency could achieve 90 percent treatment efficiency at no cost. 
EPA understands that significant material and/or labor costs actually 
might be incurred by owners/operators who implement treatment process 
changes such as adding or modifying aerators, or implementing other 
process improvements, and specifically requests comment on this 
assumption. Nevertheless, we currently estimate that refineries using 
EBU for treatment of affected wastewater streams would incur, on 
average, a cost of $10,000/year over the first 5 years.
    Table 6 presents the estimated risk reductions for the EBU control 
Option. Table 6 also presents the risk impacts assuming a hypothetical 
baseline based on the addition of emissions from cooling towers and 
wastewater operations to the RTR dataset. It is important to note that 
the risk impacts resulting from a higher HAP baseline estimated 
assuming that 50 percent of EBU are achieving an average of 80 percent, 
rather than 92 percent control, and that this is an assumption (an 
estimate of hypothetical emissions) based on our judgment of what could 
be occurring in the industry, and is not based on actual emissions 
estimates or modeling. EPA specifically requests comment and data 
related to the validity of this assumption. The baseline benzene 
emissions were assumed to increase from 136 tpy benzene (in the RTR 
database) to 388 tpy benzene, and the reductions achieved as a result 
of imposing demonstration requirements leading to better EBU process 
controls were calculated to be 138 tpy benzene. Finally, based on a 
ratio of 7.7 percent benzene to HAP for wastewater, we calculated 
reductions of 1,800 tpy HAP from this option. Additionally, we also 
increased the adjusted baseline to account for unreported cooling tower 
emissions of 285 tpy benzene. Accordingly, risk impacts for the 
baseline were scaled linearly, and the EBU controls were estimated to 
reduce cancer incidence from the hypothetical baseline by .01 to .02. 
It should be noted that this is not a rigorous risk analysis, but a 
rough estimate of risk impacts based on projected wastewater emissions.

[[Page 50729]]



                            Table 6.--Risk Impacts of Regulatory Alternative for EBU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Option 1
                                                                                     adjusted      Option 2 EBU
                            Parameter                              RTR baseline   (hypothetical)     controls
                                                                                     baseline     (hypothetical)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk to Most Exposed Individual:
    Cancer (in 1 million).......................................              70              70              70
    Noncancer (HI)..............................................             0.3             0.3             0.3
Size of Population at Cancer Risk: \1\
    > 100-in-1 million..........................................               0               0               0
    > 10-in-1 million...........................................           6,000          10,500           9,300
    > 1-in-1 million............................................         460,000         805,000         716,000
Number of Plants at Cancer Risk Level: \1\
    > 100-in-1 million..........................................               0               0               0
    > 10-in-1 million...........................................              21              41              36
    > 1-in-1 million............................................              96             108             104
Population with HI > 1 \2\......................................               0               0               0
No. of Plants with HI > 1.......................................               0               0               0
Cancer Incidence................................................       0.04-0.09        0.07-.16        0.06-.14
Cancer Incidence Reduction (Percent)............................  ..............              NA              15
HAP Emission Reduction (Percent)................................  ..............              NA              11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Population risks and plant risk estimates are based on utilizing the high end of the reported cancer URE
  range for benzene. These estimates may be as much as 30 percent lower when estimated using the lower end of
  the benzene URE range.
\2\ If the Hazard Index (HI) is calculated to be less or equal to 1, then no adverse health effects are expected
  as a result of the exposure.

    Under Option 1, we are proposing to make no changes to the current 
Refinery MACT rule, and are proposing that the current level of control 
under the existing MACT standard represents both an acceptable level of 
risk (the cancer risk to the most exposed individual is approximately 
70-in-1 million) and provides public health protection with an ample 
margin of safety. This proposed finding is based on the existing data 
(emissions estimates from 22 refineries, the NEI, and from public 
review of the NEI data) that indicate that risks posed to wastewater 
treatment systems are low and that further reduction of such low risk 
is not warranted and is not necessary to achieve an ample margin of 
safety.
    We are also proposing that Option 2 provides an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health. This option may reduce HAP emissions 
and risks beyond the current MACT standard using controls that are 
technically and economically feasible and that pose no adverse 
environmental impacts. Further, the option addresses the uncertainty in 
emissions estimates by requiring that owners and operators of EBU 
demonstrate their systems are effective as reflected by the low 
reported emissions estimates for wastewater treatment systems. We 
believe this option addresses the consideration of uncertainty in the 
ample margin of safety decision.
    We estimate that these changes could reduce the number of people at 
cancer risk greater than one in a million by 89,000 individuals. In 
addition, Option 2 could reduce the cancer incidence by between 0.01 
and 0.02 cases per year (i.e., prevent one cancer case every 100 to 50 
years), depending on the accuracy of our assumptions, and resulting in 
a cost of $110 to $55 million per cancer case avoided. The annualized 
cost impacts of Option 2 are estimated at 1.1 million. Our economic 
analysis (summarized later in this preamble) indicates that this cost 
will have little impact on the price and output of petroleum products.
c. Regulatory Decision for Cooling Towers
    Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires that we evaluate residual 
risk and set standards as necessary to protect human health with an 
ample margin of safety within 8 years of promulgation of a MACT 
standard. We are performing the CAA section 112(f)(2) review for all 
petroleum refinery MACT 1 sources, including cooling towers, in this 
proposal.
    As stated previously, the petroleum refinery risks are now 
acceptable. We believe that with the controls proposed as meeting CAA 
sections (d)(2) and (d)(3), no additional controls for cooling towers 
are needed to provide an ample margin of safety under CAA section 
(f)(2). In the final rule we will select MACT as one of these two 
options or other options that are a logical outgrowth of public 
comments. We will then assess the risk that remains and also perform 
the ample margin of safety analysis in the manner described above.

F. What is EPA proposing pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6)?

    Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires us to review and revise MACT 
standards, as necessary, every 8 years, taking into account 
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
have occurred during that time. This authority provides us with broad 
discretion to revise the MACT standards as we determine necessary, and 
to account for a wide range of relevant factors.
    We do not interpret CAA section 112(d)(6) as requiring another 
analysis of MACT floors for existing and new sources. Rather, we 
interpret the provision as essentially requiring us to consider 
developments in pollution control in the industry (``taking into 
account developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies''), and assessing the costs of potentially stricter 
standards reflecting those developments (69 FR 48351). As the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has found 
regarding similar statutory provisions directing EPA to reach 
conclusions after considering various enumerated factors, we read this 
provision as providing EPA with substantial latitude in weighing these 
factors and arriving at an appropriate balance in revising our 
standards. This discretion also provides us with substantial 
flexibility in choosing how to apply modified standards, if necessary, 
to the affected industry.
    In an earlier rulemaking, we elaborated on how we expect we would 
address the need for future reviews under certain circumstances and our 
position regarding when revisions may be likely under CAA section 
112(d)(6). For more information on this subject, see Nation Emission 
Standards for

[[Page 50730]]

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the 
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (71 FR 34437-34438, 
June 14, 2006).
    We could not identify any other developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies for Refinery MACT 1 sources. 
Therefore, as a result of this CAA section 112(d)(6) review, we are 
proposing the same two options as we proposed to meet section 
112(f)(2). Based on the uncertainty of the cost of control for 
individual refineries and the relatively small reductions in health 
risks that are achieved by these controls, we are proposing that these 
controls are not necessary under 112(d)(6). Alternately, if we conclude 
in the final rule that there are cost savings associated with requiring 
slotted guidepole controls for storage vessels, we are proposing to 
require those controls pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
    The consent decree also requires us to consider and address the 
application of subpart A to subpart CC of part 63, as appropriate. The 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A are contained in Table 6 of 
40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. As a result of our review, no changes are 
currently proposed to Table 6 of the rule. However, as discussed in 
section V of this preamble, we are requesting comments on entries to 
the table that may be confusing to owners and operators.

V. Request for Comments

    We request comment on all aspects of the proposed rule. All 
significant comments received during the comment period will be 
considered in the development and selection of the final rule. In 
addition to general comments on the proposed options, we particularly 
request comments and data on the following issues. Comments must 
provide supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow 
characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or 
information.

1. Fenceline Monitoring

    Based on the residual risk results, one of the primary risk drivers 
from the Refinery MACT 1 emission sources is benzene. The primary 
releases of benzene are fugitive emissions from process equipment, 
wastewater treatment, storage tanks, and loading operations and 
generally occur near ground level. Thus, the highest benzene 
concentrations outside the facility will likely occur near ground level 
at the property boundaries. Consequently, monitoring at the property 
boundary (fenceline) would provide a measure of the annual average 
benzene concentrations immediately surrounding the refinery, which 
might be useful in efforts to eliminate uncertainties in emissions 
estimates.
    As noted in section IV.H of this preamble, we are requesting 
comment on: the need for a fenceline monitoring program, potential 
monitoring methods (e.g., diffusive sampling or alternative active 
sampling methods, alternative sorbents for measuring HAP other than 
benzene), monitor siting, monitoring frequency, feasibility of various 
monitoring approaches/methods, sampling and analytical precision and 
accuracy, reliability of monitoring methods and devices, consideration 
of non-facility related emissions, and sampling and analytical costs.

2. Test Methods for Wastewater

    We are also requesting comment on the applicability and feasibility 
of Method 5220 for the measurement of chemical oxygen demand (COD) in 
wastewater treated by EBU and alternative COD methods.

3. Applicability of Subpart A to Subpart CC

    In addition, we request comments on Table 11 of the Appendix to 
subpart CC of 40 CFR part 63. The Appendix to subpart CC addresses the 
application of the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions in subpart A to 
subpart CC of 40 CFR part 63. We have tried to make the Appendix to 
subpart CC consistent with the Appendix A in subpart UUU, the other 40 
CFR part 63 MACT standard affecting petroleum refineries.

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 the proposed amendments 
to the NESHAP for Petroleum Refining (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) will 
be submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501, et seq. A separate notice seeking public comment on these 
information collection requirements will be published in the Federal 
Register.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    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 in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed 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 and no more than 125,000 barrels per day of capacity of 
petroleum-based inputs, \3\ including crude oil or bona fide feedstocks 
for NAICS code 32411); (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

[[Page 50731]]

enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Capacity includes owned or leased facilities as well as 
facilities under a processing agreement or an agreement such as an 
exchange agreement or a throughput. The total product to be 
delivered under the contract must be at least 90 percent refined by 
the successful bidder from either crude oil or bona fide feedstocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed 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 
analyses of both options, the amendments would either result in a 
nationwide net cost of about $1.0 million or achieve a nationwide net 
savings (i.e., a return) of about $4.0 million per year due to 
reductions in product losses. Only one affected small firm would incur 
net costs as a result of the proposed amendments; all other small or 
large firms owning affected refineries would have net savings. Net 
costs for the affected small firm are well below 0.01 percent of its 
revenue; therefore, no adverse economic impacts are expected for any 
small entity. Thus, the costs associated with the proposal would not 
result in any ``significant'' adverse economic impact for any small 
entity.
    Although the proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, we nonetheless tried 
to reduce the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. We held 
meetings with industry trade associations and company representatives 
to discuss the proposed rule and have included provisions for small 
facilities that address their concerns. We continue to be interested in 
the potential impacts of the proposed action on small entities and 
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    The EPA has determined that the proposed amendments do 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 1 year. As discussed earlier in this 
preamble, these amendments result in nationwide net savings to the 
private sector. Thus, the proposed rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the 
proposed amendments do not significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. The proposed amendments contain no requirements that apply 
to such governments, and impose no obligations upon them. The proposed 
rule is not subject to section 203 of the UMRA.

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 proposed 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 proposed 
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 proposed amendments.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comments on these proposed 
amendments from State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' The proposed amendments do not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. They would 
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 proposed amendments impose no requirements on tribal governments. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed amendments.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on these proposed 
amendments from tribal officials.

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

    Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to 
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably

[[Page 50732]]

feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because 
they are not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 
12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children.

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

    The proposed amendments are not a ``significant energy action'' as 
defined in Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, 
May 22, 2001) because they are not likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have 
concluded that the proposed 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 of 1995 (NTTAA) (Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (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. The 
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when 
the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This proposed rule involves technical standards. EPA cites the 
following methods in this rule: EPA Method 8260B, Volatile Organic 
Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), in Test 
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods 
(incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 63.14), for analysis of water 
samples taken from cooling tower return lines; 40 CFR 61.355(c)(3) of 
the National Emission Standards for Benzene Waste Operations for water 
sample collection; and 40 CFR part 63, appendix C, for the fraction 
biodegradation of benzene in EBU. This proposed rule also cites the 
following VCS: Method 5210, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), for 
measuring BOD5 (for 5-day BOD), Method 5220, Chemical Oxygen 
Demand (COD), for measuring COD, and Method 2540E, Fixed and Volatile 
Solids Ignited at 500 degrees C, for measuring MLVSS concentration, all 
in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 
(incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 63.14).
    Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS 
in addition to the methods cited in this proposed rule. One VCS was 
found that could potentially be applicable to this rule in lieu of 
Standard Method 5220, Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), for measuring COD. 
This potential standard is ASTM D1252-06, Standard Test Methods for 
Chemical Oxygen Demand (Dichromate Oxygen Demand) of Water. The EPA 
requests comments on whether this standard should be reviewed for 
relevancy to today's proposed rule. Based on the comments received, the 
EPA will review this method for inclusion in the final rule. No VCS 
were found for the other methods cited in this rule.
    For the methods required or referenced by these proposed 
amendments, 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 
under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General 
Provisions. In general, EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the 
proposed amendments and, specifically, invites the public to identify 
other potentially-applicable VCS and to explain why such standards 
should be used in this regulation.

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 these proposed amendments will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because they increase 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. These proposed amendments add new control 
requirements to established national standards for petroleum 
refineries.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: August 21, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

Option 1 for Sec.  63.14

    2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraph (k)(1)(iv) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) Method 8260B, Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas 
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), Revision 2 (and subsequent 
revisions), dated December 1996 and in Update III, IBR approved for 
Sec.  63.654(a)(1) and (b) of Subpart CC of this part.
* * * * *

Option 2 for Sec.  63.14

    3. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraphs (k)(1)(iv) and (l) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) Method 8260B, Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas 
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), Revision 2 (and subsequent 
revisions), dated December 1996 and in Update III, IBR approved for 
Sec.  63.654(a)(1) and (b) of Subpart CC of this part.
* * * * *
    (l) The following material is available from the American Public 
Health Association, 1015 15th Street, NW.,

[[Page 50733]]

Washington, DC 20005 or at http://www.standardmethods.org:
    (1) The following methods as published in Standard Methods for the 
Examination of Water and Wastewater, A.D. Eaton (ed.), et al., 21st 
Edition (and subsequent editions), dated 2005:
    (i) Method 2540E, Solids, dated 1997, IBR approved for Sec.  
63.647(d)(5) of Subpart CC of this part.
    (ii) Method 5210, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), dated 2001, IBR 
approved for Sec.  63.647(d)(6) of Subpart CC of this part.
    (iii) Method 5220, Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), dated 1997, IBR 
approved for Sec.  63.647(d)(6) of Subpart CC of this part.
    (2) [Reserved]

Subpart CC--[Amended]

Option 1 for Sec.  63.640

    4. Section 63.640 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
    b. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
    c. Revising paragraphs (c)(6) and (7);
    d. Adding paragraph (c)(8);
    e. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text;
    f. Adding paragraph (h)(6);
    g. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (l) introductory text 
and the first sentence in paragraph (l)(3) introductory text; and
    h. Adding paragraph (s).


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 (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:
* * * * *
    (c) For the purposes of this subpart, the affected source shall 
comprise all emissions points, in combination, listed in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (8) of this section that are located at a single 
refinery plant site.
* * * * *
    (6) All marine vessel loading operations located at a 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 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 cooling tower systems associated with petroleum refining 
process units meeting the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section and 
which meets the criteria in either paragraph (a)(8)(i) or (a)(8)(ii) of 
this section:
    (i) The cooling tower system provides non-contact cooling water to 
any heat exchanger in Table 1 HAP service.
    (ii) The cooling tower system receives cooling water from multiple 
heat exchangers which serve different petroleum refinery process units 
and any of the heat exchangers are in Table 1 HAP service.
* * * * *
    (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 (6) of this section.
* * * * *
    (6) Cooling tower systems that are part of an existing source shall 
be in compliance with Sec.  63.654 no later than 3 years and 90 days 
after the date of publication of the final amendments in the Federal 
Register.
* * * * *
    (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 cooling tower 
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. * * *
* * * * *
    (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 cooling 
tower 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. * * *
* * * * *
    (s) Overlap of subpart CC with other regulations for cooling tower 
systems. After the compliance date specified in paragraph (h) of this 
section, the owner or operator of a cooling tower system that is also 
subject to another subpart in this part (e.g., subpart F, YY, FFFF) is 
exempt from the monitoring requirements in Sec.  63.654(a) through (d).

Option 2 for Sec.  63.640

    5. Section 63.640 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
    b. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
    c. Revising paragraphs (c)(6) and (7);
    d. Adding paragraph (c)(8);
    e. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text;
    f. Adding paragraphs (h)(6) through (8);
    g. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (l) introductory text 
and the first sentence in paragraph (l)(3) introductory text; and
    h. Adding paragraph (s).


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 (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:
* * * * *
    (c) For the purposes of this subpart, the affected source shall 
comprise all emissions points, in combination, listed in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (8) of this section that are located at a single 
refinery plant site.
* * * * *
    (6) All marine vessel loading operations located at a 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 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 cooling tower systems associated with petroleum refining 
process units meeting the criteria in paragraph (a) of the section and 
which meets the criteria in either paragraph (a)(8)(i) or paragraph 
(a)(8)(ii) of this section:
    (i) The cooling tower system provides non-contact cooling water to 
any heat exchanger in Table 1 HAP service.
    (ii) The cooling tower system receives cooling water from multiple 
heat

[[Page 50734]]

exchangers which serve different petroleum refinery process units and 
any of the heat exchangers are in Table 1 HAP service.
* * * * *
    (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 (8) of this section.
* * * * *
    (6) Group 1 storage vessels that are part of an existing source 
shall be in compliance with Sec.  63.646(c) and (e) no later than 3 
years and 90 days after the date of publication of the final amendments 
in the Federal Register.
    (7) Group 1 wastewater streams that are part of an existing source 
shall be in compliance with Sec.  63.647(d) no later than 3 years and 
90 days after the date of publication of the final amendments in the 
Federal Register.
    (8) Cooling tower systems that are part of an existing source shall 
be in compliance with Sec.  63.654 no later than 3 years and 90 days 
after the date of publication of the final amendments in the Federal 
Register.
* * * * *
    (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 cooling tower 
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 paragraph (i) or paragraph (j) of this section, the requirements in 
paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section shall apply. * * *
* * * * *
    (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 cooling 
tower 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. * * *
* * * * *
    (s) Overlap of subpart CC with other regulations for cooling tower 
systems. After the compliance date specified in paragraph (h) of this 
section, the owner or operator of a cooling tower system that is also 
subject to another subpart in this part (e.g., subpart F, YY, FFFF) is 
exempt from the monitoring requirements in Sec.  63.654(a) through (d).
    6. Section 63.641 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, 
definitions for ``Cooling tower system,'' ``Cooling water return 
lines,'' and ``Point of measurement for leak determination,'' to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.641  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Cooling tower system means a closed loop recirculation system or a 
once through system.
    Cooling water return lines means the main water trunk lines at the 
inlet to the cooling tower before exposure to the atmosphere.
* * * * *
    Point of measurement for leak determination means any location in 
the cooling water return line or lines prior to exposure of the cooling 
water to the atmosphere.
* * * * *

Option 2 for Sec.  63.646; Option 1 would not revise Sec.  63.646

    7. Section 63.646 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (e) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.646  Storage vessel provisions.

* * * * *
    (c) On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  
63.640(h)(6), the owner or operator of a storage vessel that is 
equipped with an external floating roof and that is part of an existing 
source shall comply with the requirements for slotted guide poles in 
Sec.  63.119(c)(2)(ix) and (x). The following requirements do not apply 
to storage vessels at existing sources subject to this subpart: 
Sec. Sec.  63.119(b)(5); (b)(6); (c)(2)(i) through (viii), (xi), and 
(xii); and (d)(2).
* * * * *
    (e) On and after the compliance date in Sec.  63.640(h)(6), when 
complying with the inspection requirements of Sec.  63.120(b) of 
subpart G, owners and operators of a storage vessel that is equipped 
with an external floating roof and that is part of an existing source 
shall comply with the provisions of Sec.  63.120(b)(10) and (b)(10)(i) 
for slotted guide poles as described in paragraph (e)(1) and (2) of 
this section. The owner or operator is not required to comply with the 
requirements for slotted membranes.
    (1) As part of the inspection required in Sec.  63.120(b)(10), the 
owner or operator shall visually check the gasketed cover or flexible 
fabric sleeve seal and gasketed float or other device for each slotted 
guide pole.
    (2) If the external floating roof has defects; the primary seal has 
holes, tear, or other openings in the seal or the seal fabric; or the 
secondary seal has holes, tears, or other openings in the seal or seal 
fabric; or the gaskets (including a gasketed cover or gasketed float 
for a slotted guide pole) no longer close off the liquid surface from 
the atmosphere; or the flexible fabric sleeve seal for a slotted guide 
pole has holes, tears, or other openings in the seal or seal fabric; or 
the slotted membrane has more than 10 percent open area, the owner or 
operator shall repair the items as necessary so that none of the 
conditions specified in this paragraph exist before filling or 
refilling the storage vessel with organic HAP.
* * * * *

Option 2 for Sec.  63.647; Option 1 Would Not Revise Sec.  63.647

    8. Section 63.647 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.647  Wastewater provisions.

* * * * *
    (d) On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  
63.640(h)(7), the owner or operator of an enhanced biodegradation unit 
(EBU) that receives a Group 1 wastewater stream from a petroleum 
refinery shall comply with the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) 
through (6) of this section. The provisions in Sec.  
61.348(b)(2)(ii)(B) for the recommended range for the food-to-
microorganism ratio, the mixed liquor suspended solids concentration, 
and residence time do not apply, and the requirements in Sec. Sec.  
61.348(b)(2)(i), 61.354(b)(2), and 61.355(k)(4)(i) for monitoring the 
benzene concentration at the inlet to the EBU and maintaining it below 
10 parts per million by weight (ppmw) do not apply.
    (1) The fraction biodegraded of benzene in each EBU shall be 90 
percent or greater.
    (2) The mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS) 
concentration shall not fall below the operating limit established 
during the initial performance test.
    (3) The food-to-microorganism ratio shall not exceed the operating 
limit established during the initial performance test.

[[Page 50735]]

    (i) Food can be measured as either grams per liter (g/l) of 5-day 
biological oxygen demand (BOD5) or g/l of chemical oxygen 
demand (COD), but you must use the same measure used to develop your 
operating limit.
    (ii) Determine the food-to-microorganism ratio operating limit 
using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04SE07.003

Where:

BOD5 = 5-day biological oxygen demand or chemical oxygen 
demand of EBU influent wastewater (g/l = kg/m\3\);
Qin = Influent wastewater volumetric flow rate to the EBU 
(m\3\/day);
[MLVSS] = Concentration of mixed liquor volatile suspended solids 
(g/l = kg/m\3\); and
VEBU = Average volume of wastewater in the EBU during 
normal process operations (m\3\).

    (4) The owner or operator shall conduct an initial performance test 
to demonstrate compliance with the treatment efficiency standard of 
each EBU using the following procedures:
    (i) Determine the fraction biodegraded of benzene as determined 
according to the procedures in appendix C to part 63 (Determination of 
the Fraction Biodegraded (Fbio) in a Biological Treatment 
Unit).
    (ii) Use the multiple zone concentration method with separate 
``inlet'' zones for each inlet location containing an applicable 
benzene waste stream. The inlet zone is defined as the depth of the EBU 
times the 100 square foot area surrounding each benzene wastewater 
inlet.
    (iii) The remainder of the EBU may be modeled as a single zone or 
multiple zones depending on the mixing zones present in the EBU as 
described in appendix C to part 63.
    (iv) The volume-weighted average MLVSS concentration used in the 
multiple zone Fbio test must be used as the operating limit 
for MLVSS. The volume-weighted average food-to-microorganism ratio used 
in the multiple zone Fbio test must be used as the operating 
limit for the food-to-microorganism ratio.
    (5) Measure the MLVSS in the EBU no less frequently than once per 
week using Method 2540 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14); 
and
    (6) Measure the EBU influent biological oxygen demand (BOD) using 
Method 5210 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14) or the COD 
MLVSS using Method 5220 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14) in 
the EBU no less frequently than once per week. Calculate the food-to-
microorganism ratio once a week using Equation 1 of this section and 
record the results.
    9. 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), 63.425(a) through (c), 63.425(e) through (h), 63.427(a) 
and (b), and 63.428(b), (c), (g)(1), and (h)(1) through (3).
* * * * *


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

    10. Sections 63.654 and 63.655 are redesignated as Sec. Sec.  
63.655 and 63.656.
    11. In the table below, for each section indicated in the left 
column, in the paragraph listed in the second column, remove the 
reference indicated in the third column from wherever it appears, and 
add the reference indicated in the fourth column:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Section                        Paragraph                  Remove                    Add
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.640........................  (b)(2).................  Sec.   63.654(h)(6)(i).  Sec.   63.655(h)(6)(i).
Sec.   63.640........................  (e)(2)(iii)............  Sec.   63.654(h)(6)(ii)  Sec.
                                                                                          63.655(h)(6)(ii).
Sec.   63.640........................  (f)(5).................  Sec.                     Sec.
                                                                 63.654(h)(6)(iii).       63.655(h)(6)(iii).
Sec.   63.640........................  (k)(2)(ii).............  Sec.   63.654(f).......  Sec.   63.655(f).
Sec.   63.640........................  (k)(2)(iii)............  Sec.   63.654(g) and     Sec.   63.655(g) and
                                                                 (h).                     (h).
Sec.   63.640........................  (l) introductory text..  Sec.   63.654(f).......  Sec.   63.655(f).
Sec.   63.640........................  (l)(3)(i)..............  Sec.   63.654(f).......  Sec.   63.655(f).
Sec.   63.640........................  (l)(3)(ii).............  Sec.   63.654(g) and     Sec.   63.655(g) and
                                                                 (h).                     (h).
Sec.   63.641........................  Definition of            Sec.   63.654(i).......  Sec.   63.655(i).
                                        ``Continuous record''.
Sec.   63.642........................  (k)(1).................  Sec.   63.654..........  Sec.   63.655.
Sec.   63.642........................  (l)(2).................  Sec.   63.654..........  Sec.   63.655.
Sec.   63.644........................  (b) introductory text..  Sec.   63.654(h).......  Sec.   63.655(h).
Sec.   63.644........................  (c)(1).................  Sec.   63.654(h) and     Sec.   63.655(h) and
                                                                 (i).                     (i).
Sec.   63.644........................  (d)....................  Sec.   63.654(f)(3)....  Sec.   63.655(f)(3).
Sec.   63.644........................  (e)....................  Sec.   63.654(g)(6)....  Sec.   63.655(g)(6).
Sec.   63.645........................  (h)(2).................  Sec.   63.654(f), (g),   Sec.   63.655(f), (g),
                                                                 or (h).                  or (h).
Sec.   63.646........................  (j)....................  Sec.   63.654(f).......  Sec.   63.655(f).
Sec.   63.646........................  (k)....................  Sec.   63.654(g).......  Sec.   63.655(g).
Sec.   63.652........................  (e)(5).................  Sec.   63.654(g)(8) and  Sec.   63.655(g)(8) and
                                                                 Sec.                     Sec.
                                                                 63.654(g)(8)(iii).       63.655(g)(8)(iii).
Sec.   63.652........................  (f)(3).................  Sec.   63.654(g)(6)(i).  Sec.   63.655(g)(6)(i).
Sec.   63.652........................  (l)(1).................  Sec.   63.654(g)(6)....  Sec.   63.655(g)(6).
Sec.   63.653........................  (a)(7).................  Sec.   63.654(h)(4)....  Sec.   63.655(h)(4).
Sec.   63.653........................  (b)....................  Sec.   63.654..........  Sec.   63.655.
Sec.   63.653........................  (c)....................  Sec.   63.654..........  Sec.   63.655.
Sec.   63.653........................  (d) introductory text..  Sec.   63.654(g) and     Sec.   63.655(g) and
                                                                 (h).                     (h).
Sec.   63.653........................  (d)(2)(vii)............  Sec.   63.654(h)(4)....  Sec.   63.655(h)(4).
Sec.   63.653........................  (d)(2)(viii)(G)........  Sec.   63.654(h)(4)....  Sec.   63.655(h)(4).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 50736]]

Option 1 for Sec.  63.654

    12. Section 63.654 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  63.654  Cooling tower systems.

    (a) On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  
63.650(h)(8), the owner or operator of an existing source shall monitor 
each cooling tower system subject to this subpart to detect and repair 
leaks of organic HAP into the cooling water. The owner or operator may 
elect to monitor the total organic HAP listed in Table 1 of this 
subpart on a quarterly basis according to the requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(1) of this section or monitor chemical usage or other 
surrogates according to the requirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section.
    (1) The owner or operator shall conduct quarterly monitoring of 
total organic HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart according to the 
methods and procedures in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) Collect a water sample from each cooler water return line(s) 
prior to air stripping or exposure to air. You must collect each sample 
using the sampling procedures in Sec.  61.355(c)(3) of the National 
Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations.
    (ii) Analyze each sample using EPA Method 8260B (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  63.14). Determine the total organic HAP 
concentration as the sum of the individual HAP concentrations of the 
HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart.
    (iii) If the total organic HAP concentration exceeds 1 part per 
million by weight (ppmw), a leak is detected.
    (2) The owner or operator shall monitor chlorine or bromine usage 
at least once each day, free chlorine at least twice each day, 
oxidation reduction potential (ORP) at least six times per day, 
hydrocarbons (using an online analyzer) at least twice each day, or 
volatile organic compounds (VOC) El Paso at least once each month 
according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of 
this section.
    (i) Conduct an initial analysis of the cooling water using EPA 
Method 8260B (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14) to 
demonstrate that the total organic HAP concentration is less than 1 
ppmw.
    (ii) Establish operating limits for the parameters to be monitored. 
You must identify the parameters to be monitored and the established 
operating limits in your Notification of Compliance Status and written 
monitoring plan.
    (iii) If the monitored operating parameter exceeds the operating 
limit, you must sample the cooling water to determine the total organic 
HAP concentration. If the total organic HAP concentration exceeds 1 
ppmw, a leak is detected.
    (b) On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  
63.650(h)(8), the owner or operator of a new source shall monitor the 
concentration of HAP from each cooling tower system subject to this 
subpart on a quarterly basis to identify and repair any leak with a 
potential mass leak rate of 10 pounds per day (lb/day) or greater of 
any single HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart or 100 lb/day or 
greater of total HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart. A heat exchange 
system may consist of an entire heat exchange system or a combination 
of heat exchangers such that, based on the rate of cooling water and 
the sensitivity of the test method, a leak of 10 lb/day or greater of 
any single HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart or 100 lb/day or 
greater of total HAP would be detected. The owner or operator shall 
conduct the quarterly monitoring according to the methods and 
procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Collect a water sample from each cooler water return line(s) 
prior to air stripping or exposure to air. You must collect each sample 
using the sampling procedures in Sec.  61.355(c)(3) of the National 
Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations.
    (2) Analyze each sample using EPA Method 8260B (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  63.14). Determine the total HAP concentration as 
the sum of the individual HAP concentrations of the HAP listed in Table 
1 of this subpart.
    (3) Calculate and record the potential mass leak rate using 
Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04SE07.004

Where:

L = Potential mass leak rate of HAP (lb/day);
0.012 = Constant for unit conversion (lb/gallon x minutes/day x part 
per million parts);
CHAP = Concentration of individual or total organic HAP 
in the cooling tower water prior to exposure to the air (ppmw); and
QCT = Volumetric flow rate of cooling water to the 
cooling tower (gallons per minute).
    (4) If the results of Equation 1 of this section indicate a leak 
with a mass leak rate of 10 lb/day of any single HAP or 100 lb/day of 
total HAP per day or greater, a leak is detected.
    (c) If a leak is detected, the owner or operator must identify the 
source of the leak as soon as practicable, but no later than 30 days 
after receiving the sampling results that indicate the presence of a 
leak.
    (d) Except for a delay allowed under paragraph (e) of this section, 
the owner or operator must repair any leak as soon as practicable, but 
no later 30 days after identifying the source of leak. Repairs may 
include:
    (1) Physical repairs to the leaking heat exchanger;
    (2) Blocking the leaking tube within the heat exchanger;
    (3) Changing the pressure so that water flows into the process 
fluid; or
    (4) Replacing the heat exchanger.
    (e) The owner or operator may delay the repair of a leak if the 
conditions in paragraph (e)(1) or paragraph (e)(2) of this section are 
met.
    (1) Repairing the leak would require the process unit served by the 
leaking heat exchanger to be shut down, and a shutdown for repair would 
cause greater emissions than the potential emissions from the cooling 
tower from the time the leaking exchanger was first identified and the 
next planned shutdown.
    (i) The facility must use the startup and shutdown emissions 
estimates in the cooling tower monitoring plan required by paragraph 
(f) of this section for the estimate of total organic HAP emissions for 
the process unit serviced by the leaking heat exchanger.
    (ii) The owner or operator must conduct monthly monitoring of the 
total organic HAP concentration using EPA Method 8260B (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  63.14).
    (iii) The owner or operator shall recalculate the potential air 
emissions from the cooling tower using the new sampling results and the 
time period between the most recent sampling results and the next 
planned shutdown. If the potential air emissions from the cooling tower 
exceed the startup and shutdown emission estimates for any month, the 
owner or operator must repair the heat exchanger within 30 days of 
receiving the sampling results that voided the delay of repair; or
    (2) The necessary parts are not reasonably available, in which case 
the owner or operator must complete the repair as soon as practicable 
upon receiving the necessary parts, but no later than 120 days after 
identifying the leaking exchanger. The owner or operator can not 
further delay the repair when a sampling result voids the delay of 
repair under paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (f) The owner or operator shall prepare, implement, and maintain 
onsite at all times a cooling tower monitoring plan that includes the 
information specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (11) of this 
section.
    (1) Identification of all cooling tower systems at the facility;

[[Page 50737]]

    (2) Identification of the cooling tower systems subject to this 
subpart;
    (3) Identification of the cooling tower systems receiving cooling 
water from a heat exchanger that are exempt from this subpart according 
to Sec.  63.640(s);
    (4) Identification of the heat exchanger(s) and process unit(s) 
serviced by each cooling tower system that is subject to this subpart;
    (5) The HAP concentration of the process fluids in each heat 
exchanger serviced by a cooling tower system subject to this subpart;
    (6) The surrogate parameters to be monitored, the monitoring 
frequency, and parameter operating limits for each cooling tower system 
subject to this subpart;
    (7) The methods used to identify the leaking heat exchanger once a 
leak is detected;
    (8) Standard repair procedures that reduce emissions from leaks;
    (9) Procedures for reporting leaks into the cooling water system;
    (10) List of critical spare parts that must be maintained in 
inventory;
    (11) Engineering estimates of startup and shutdown organic HAP 
emissions for each process unit serviced by a cooling tower subject to 
this subpart.

Option 2 for Sec.  63.654

    13. Section 63.654 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  63.654  Cooling tower systems.

    (a) On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.  
63.650(h)(8), the owner or operator of a new or existing source shall 
monitor the concentration of HAP from each cooling tower system subject 
to this subpart on a monthly basis to identify and repair any leak with 
a potential mass leak rate of 10 pounds per day (lb/day) or greater of 
any single HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart or 100 lb/day or 
greater of total HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart. A heat exchange 
system may consist of an entire heat exchange system or a combination 
of heat exchangers such that, based on the rate of cooling water and 
the sensitivity of the test method, a leak of 10 lb/day or greater of 
any single HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart or 100 lb/day or 
greater of total HAP would be detected. The owner or operator shall 
conduct the monthly monitoring according to the methods and procedures 
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Collect a water sample from each cooler water return line(s) 
prior to air stripping or exposure to air. You must collect each sample 
using the sampling procedures in Sec.  61.355(c)(3) of the National 
Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations.
    (2) Analyze each sample using EPA Method 8260B (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  63.14). Determine the total organic HAP 
concentration as the sum of the individual HAP concentrations of the 
HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart.
    (3) Calculate and record the potential mass leak rate using 
Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04SE07.005

Where:

L = Potential mass leak rate of HAP (lb/day);
0.012 = Constant for unit conversion (lb/gallon x minutes/day x part 
per million parts);
CHAP = Concentration of individual or total organic HAP 
in the cooling tower water prior to exposure to the air (ppmw); and
QCT = Volumetric flow rate of cooling water to the 
cooling tower (gallons per minute).

    (b) If the results of Equation 1 of this section indicate a leak 
with a mass leak rate of 10 lb/day of any single HAP or 100 lb/day of 
total HAP per day or greater, the owner or operator must identify the 
source of the leak as soon as practicable, but no later than 30 days 
after receiving the sampling results that indicate the presence of a 
leak.
    (c) Except for a delay allowed under paragraph (d) of this section, 
the owner or operator must repair any leak with a mass leak rate of 10 
pounds of any single Table 1 HAP or 100 pounds of total Table 1 HAP per 
day or greater as soon as practicable, but no later than 30 days after 
identifying the source of leak. Repairs may include:
    (1) Physical repairs to the leaking heat exchanger;
    (2) Blocking the leaking tube within the heat exchanger;
    (3) Changing the pressure so that water flows into the process 
fluid; or
    (4) Replacing the heat exchanger.
    (d) The owner or operator may delay the repair of a leak if the 
conditions in paragraph (d)(1) or paragraph (d)(2) of this section are 
met.
    (1) Repairing the leak would require the process unit served by the 
leaking heat exchanger to be shut down, and a shutdown for repair would 
cause greater emissions than the potential emissions from the cooling 
tower from the time the leaking exchanger was first identified and the 
next planned shutdown.
    (i) The facility must use the startup and shutdown emissions 
estimates in the cooling tower monitoring plan required by paragraph 
(e) of this section for the estimate of HAP emissions for the process 
unit serviced by the leaking heat exchanger.
    (ii) The owner or operator must continue monthly monitoring of HAP 
as required by paragraph (a) of this section.
    (iii) The owner or operator shall recalculate the potential air 
emissions from the cooling tower using the new sampling results and the 
time period between the most recent sampling results and the next 
planned shutdown. If the potential air emissions from the cooling tower 
exceed the startup and shutdown emission estimates for any month, the 
owner or operator must repair the heat exchanger within 30 days of 
receiving the sampling results that voided the delay of repair; or
    (2) The necessary parts are not reasonably available, in which case 
the owner or operator must complete the repair as soon as practicable 
upon receiving the necessary parts, but no later than 120 days after 
identifying the leaking exchanger. The owner or operator cannot further 
delay the repair when a sampling result voids the delay of repair under 
paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (e) The owner or operator shall prepare, implement, and maintain 
onsite at all times a cooling tower monitoring plan that includes the 
information specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (10) of this 
section.
    (1) Identification of all cooling tower systems at the facility;
    (2) Identification of the cooling tower systems subject to this 
subpart;
    (3) Identification of the cooling tower systems receiving cooling 
water from a heat exchanger that are exempt from this subpart according 
to Sec.  63.640(s);
    (4) Identification of the heat exchanger(s) and process unit(s) 
serviced by each cooling tower system that is subject to this subpart;
    (5) The HAP concentration of the process fluids in each heat 
exchanger serviced by a cooling tower system subject to this subpart;
    (6) The methods used to identify the leaking heat exchanger once a 
leak is detected;
    (7) Standard repair procedures that reduce emissions from leaks;
    (8) Procedures for reporting leaks into the cooling water system;
    (9) List of critical spare parts that must be maintained in 
inventory;
    (10) Engineering estimates of startup and shutdown HAP emissions 
for each process unit serviced by a cooling tower subject to this 
subpart.

Option 1 for Sec.  63.655

    14. Newly redesignated Sec.  63.655 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (f)(1) introductory text, and adding 
paragraph (f)(1)(vi);
    b. Revising paragraph (g) introductory text and adding paragraph 
(g)(9);

[[Page 50738]]

    c. Amend paragraph (i)(1)(ii) by removing ``Sec.  63.654(e)'' and 
by inserting, in its place, ``Sec.  63.655(e)''.
    d. Redesignating existing paragraph (i)(4) as (i)(5); and
    e. Adding paragraph (i)(4).


Sec.  63.655  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) The Notification of Compliance Status report shall include the 
information specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (vi) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (vi) For each cooling tower system, identification of the cooling 
tower systems that are subject to the requirements of this subpart and 
cooling tower systems that are exempt from the requirements of this 
subpart.
* * * * *
    (g) The owner or operator of a source subject to this subpart shall 
submit Periodic Reports no later than 60 days after the end of each 6-
month period when any of the compliance exceptions specified in 
paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this section or paragraph (g)(9) of 
this section occur. The first 6-month period shall begin on the date 
the Notification of Compliance Status report is required to be 
submitted. A Periodic Report is not required if none of the compliance 
exceptions identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this section 
or paragraph (g)(9) of this section occurred during the 6-month period 
unless emissions averaging is utilized. Quarterly reports must be 
submitted for emission points included in emission averages, as 
provided in paragraph (g)(8) of this section. An owner or operator may 
submit reports required by other regulations in place of or as part of 
the Periodic Report required by this paragraph if the reports contain 
the information required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (9) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (9) For cooling tower systems, Periodic Reports must include the 
following information:
    (i) A summary of the leak monitoring data, including the number of 
leaks determined to be equal to or greater than 10 lbs/day of any one 
HAP or 100 lb/day of total HAP;
    (ii) If applicable, the date a leak was identified, the date the 
source of the leak was identified, and the date of repair.
    (iii) If applicable, a summary of the reason for delayed repair of 
any leak and the date of repair.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (4) The owner or operator of a cooling tower system subject to the 
monitoring requirements in Sec.  63.654 shall comply with the 
recordkeeping requirements in paragraphs (i)(4)(i) through (iii) of 
this section.
    (i) HAP analytical results.
    (ii) The date when a leak was identified by sampling results, the 
date when the heat exchanger leak source was identified, and the date 
when the leak source was repaired or taken out of service.
    (iii) If a repair is delayed, the reason for the delay. If the 
daily is based on startup and shutdown emissions, the initial and 
monthly calculations of the potential cooling tower emissions and the 
date of the next planned shutdown.
* * * * *

Option 2 for Sec.  63.655

    15. Newly redesignated Sec.  63.655 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (f)(1) introductory text, revising paragraph 
(f)(1)(i)(A)(1), and adding paragraphs (f)(1)(vi) and (vii);
    b. Revising paragraphs (g) introductory text, (g)(1), and 
(g)(3)(iii)(A) and adding paragraphs (g)(9) and (g)(10);
    c. Amend paragraph (i)(1)(ii) by removing ``Sec.  63.654(e)'' and 
by inserting, in its place, ``Sec.  63.655(e)''.
    d. Redesignating existing paragraph (i)(4) as (i)(5); and
    e. Adding paragraph (i)(4).


Sec.  63.655  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) The Notification of Compliance Status report shall include the 
information specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(vi) of 
this section.
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) For each Group 1 storage vessel complying with Sec.  63.646 
that is not included in an emissions average, the method of compliance 
(i.e., internal floating roof, external floating roof, or closed vent 
system and control device) and for each Group 1 storage vessel that is 
equipped with an external floating roof and that is part of an existing 
source, the method of compliance with the requirements for slotted 
guidepoles (i.e., gasketed cover or sleeveless seal and gasketed float 
or other device).
* * * * *
    (vi) For each cooling tower system, identification of the cooling 
tower systems that are subject to the requirements of this subpart and 
cooling tower systems that are exempt from the requirements of this 
subpart.
    (vii) For each EBU, identification of the operating limits for the 
mixed liquor volatile suspended solids concentration and food-to-
microorganism ratio established during the performance test and a full 
copy of the performance test report.
    (g) The owner or operator of a source subject to this subpart shall 
submit Periodic Reports no later than 60 days after the end of each 6-
month period when any of the compliance exceptions specified in 
paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this section or paragraph (g)(9) of 
this section occur. The first 6-month period shall begin on the date 
the Notification of Compliance Status report is required to be 
submitted. A Periodic Report is not required if none of the compliance 
exceptions identified in paragraph (g)(1) through (6) of this section 
or paragraph (g)(9) of this section occurred during the 6-month period 
unless emissions averaging is utilized. Quarterly reports must be 
submitted for emission points included in emission averages, as 
provided in paragraph (g)(8) of this section. An owner or operator may 
submit reports required by other regulations in place of or as part of 
the Periodic Report required by this paragraph if the reports contain 
the information required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (9) of this 
section.
    (1) For storage vessels, Periodic Reports shall include the 
information specified for Periodic Reports in paragraphs (g)(2) through 
(5) of this section except that information related to gaskets, slotted 
membranes, and sleeve seals is not required for a storage vessel that 
is part of an existing source and that is equipped with a fixed roof 
and an internal floating roof or an external floating roof converted to 
an internal floating roof. Information related to gaskets and sleeve 
seals for slotted guide poles is required for a storage vessel that is 
part of an existing source and that is equipped with an external 
floating roof.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) A failure is defined as any time in which the external floating 
roof has defects; or the primary seal has holes or other openings in 
the seal or the seal fabric; or the secondary seal has holes, tears, or 
other openings in the seal or the seal fabric, or the gaskets 
(including a gasketed cover or gasketed float for a slotted guide pole) 
no longer closes off the liquid surface from the atmosphere; or a 
flexible fabric sleeve seal for a slotted guide pole has holes or other 
openings or, for a new source, the

[[Page 50739]]

gaskets no longer close off the liquid surface from the atmosphere; or, 
for a storage vessel that is part of a new source, the slotted membrane 
has more than 10 percent open area.
* * * * *
    (9) For cooling tower systems, Periodic Reports must include the 
following information:
    (i) A summary of the leak monitoring data, including the number of 
leaks determined to be equal to or greater than 10 lbs/day of any one 
HAP or 100 lbs/day of total HAP;
    (ii) If applicable, the date a leak was identified, the date the 
source of the leak was identified, and the date of repair.
    (iii) If applicable, a summary of the reason for delayed repair of 
any leak and the date of repair.
    (10) For EBU, the periodic report must clearly identify any 
excursion from the operating limit for the concentration of mixed 
liquor volatile suspended solids or the food-to-microorganism ratio 
established in the initial performance test.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (4) The owner or operator of a cooling tower system subject to the 
monitoring requirements in Sec.  63.654 shall comply with the 
recordkeeping requirements in paragraphs (i)(4)(i) through (iii) of 
this section.
    (i) HAP analytical results.
    (ii) The date when a leak was identified by sampling results, the 
date when the heat exchanger leak source was identified, and the date 
when the leak source was repaired or taken out of service.
    (iii) If a repair is delayed, the reason for the delay. If the 
delay is based on startup and shutdown emissions, the initial and 
monthly calculations of the potential cooling tower emissions and the 
date of the next planned shutdown.
* * * * *

Appendix to Subpart CC of Part 63 [Amended]

    16. Table 6 of the appendix to subpart CC of part 63 is amended by:
    a. Revising Reference Sec.  63.6(b)(5);
    b. Revising Reference Sec. Sec.  63.7(a)(2), 63.7(g), and 
63.7(h)(3);
    c. Revising Reference Sec. Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(ii), 63.8(c)(4), 
63.8(f)(4)(i), and 63.8(g);
    d. Revising Reference Sec. Sec.  63.9(b)(1)(i), 63.9(b)(4), and 
63.9(b)(5); and
    e. Revising Reference Sec. Sec.  63.10(d)(2) and 63.10(d)(5)(i) to 
read as follows:

       Table 6.--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart CC\a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applies to
           Reference                subpart CC            Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.6(b)(5)....................  No...............  Sec.   63.655(d) of
                                                    subpart CC includes
                                                    notification
                                                    requirements.
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.7(a)(2)....................  No...............  Test results must be
                                                    submitted in the
                                                    Notification of
                                                    Compliance Status
                                                    report due 150 days
                                                    after compliance
                                                    date, as specified
                                                    in Sec.   63.655(d)
                                                    of subpart CC.
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.7(g).......................  No...............  Performance test
                                                    reporting specified
                                                    in Sec.   63.655(d).
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.7(h)(3)....................  Yes..............  Yes, except site-
                                                    specific test plans
                                                    shall not be
                                                    required, and where
                                                    Sec.   63.7(g)(3)
                                                    specifies submittal
                                                    by the date the site-
                                                    specific test plan
                                                    is due, the date
                                                    shall be 90 days
                                                    prior to the
                                                    Notification of
                                                    Compliance Status
                                                    report in Sec.
                                                    63.655(d).
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.8(c)(1)(ii)................  No...............  Addressed by periodic
                                                    reports in Sec.
                                                    63.655(e) of subpart
                                                    CC.
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.8(c)(4)....................  No...............  Subpart CC specifies
                                                    monitoring frequency
                                                    in Sec.   63.641 and
                                                    Sec.   63.655(g)(3)
                                                    of subpart CC.
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.8(f)(4)(i).................  No...............  Timeframe for
                                                    submitting request
                                                    is specified in Sec.
                                                      63.655(f)(4) of
                                                    subpart CC.
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.8(g).......................  No...............  Subpart CC specifies
                                                    data reduction
                                                    procedures in Sec.
                                                    63.655(h)(3).
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.9(b)(1)(i).................  No...............  Specified in Sec.
                                                    63.655(d)(2) of
                                                    subpart CC.
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.9(b)(4)....................  Yes..............  Except that the
                                                    notification in Sec.
                                                      63.9(b)(4)(i)
                                                    shall be submitted
                                                    at the time
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.655(d)(2) of
                                                    subpart CC.
63.9(b)(5)....................  Yes..............  Except that the
                                                    notification in Sec.
                                                      63.9(b)(5) shall
                                                    be submitted at the
                                                    time specified in
                                                    Sec.   63.655(d)(2)
                                                    of subpart CC.
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.10(d)(2)...................  No...............  Sec.   63.655(d) of
                                                    subpart CC specifies
                                                    performance test
                                                    reporting.
 

[[Page 50740]]

 
                              * * * * * * *
63.10(d)(5)(i)................  Yes\b\...........  Except that reports
                                                    required by Sec.
                                                    63.10(d)(5)(i) may
                                                    be submitted at the
                                                    same time as
                                                    periodic reports
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.655(e) of subpart
                                                    CC.
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix to Subpart CC of Part 63 [Amended]

    17. Table 10 of the appendix to subpart CC of part 63 is amended by 
revising footnotes d, f, and g to read as follows:
TABLE 10.--MISCELLANEOUS PROCESS VENTS-MONITORING, RECORDKEEPING, AND 
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLYING WITH 98 WEIGHT-PERCENT REDUCTION 
OF TOTAL ORGANIC HAP EMISSIONS OR A LIMIT OF 20 PARTS PER MILLION BY 
VOLUME
* * * * *
    \d\ NCS = Notification of Compliance Status report described in 
Sec.  63.655.
* * * * *
    \f\ When a period of excess emission is caused by insufficient 
monitoring data, as described in Sec.  63.655(g)(6)(i)(C) or (D), 
the duration of the period when monitoring data were not collected 
shall be included in the Periodic Report.
    \g\ PR = Periodic Report described in Sec.  63.655(g).
* * * * *
    18. Table 11 of the appendix to subpart CC of part 63 is added as 
follows:

Appendix to Subpart CC of Part 63--Tables

* * * * *

 Table 11.--Applicability of NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63,
                        Subpart A) to Subpart CC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Applies to
          Citation               subpart CC             Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)-63.1(a)(3).......  Yes............  General Applicability.
63.1(a)(4)..................  No.............  This table specifies
                                                applicability of General
                                                Provisions to Subpart
                                                CC.
63.1(a)(5)..................  No.............  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(6)..................  No.............
63.1(a)(7)-(9)..............  No.............  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(10).................  No.............  Subpart CC specifies
                                                calendar or operating
                                                day.
63.1(a)(11)-63.1(a)(12).....  Yes............
63.1(b)(1)..................  No.............  Initial Applicability
                                                Determination Subpart CC
                                                specifies applicability.
63.1(b)(2)..................  No.............  [Reserved].
63.1(b)(3)..................  No.............
63.1(c)(1)..................  No.............  Subpart CC specifies
                                                requirements.
63.1(c)(2)..................  No.............  Area sources are not
                                                subject to subpart CC.
63.1(c)(3)-(4)..............  No.............  [Reserved].
63.1(c)(5)..................  Yes............  Except that notification
                                                requirements in subpart
                                                CC apply.
63.1(d).....................  No.............  [Reserved].
63.1(e).....................  Yes............  Applicability of Permit
                                                Program.
63.2........................  Yes............  Definitions (63.641
                                                specifies that if the
                                                same term is defined in
                                                subparts A and CC, it
                                                shall have the meaning
                                                given in subpart CC.
63.3........................  Yes............  Units and Abbreviations.
63.4(a)(1)-(2)..............  Yes............
63.4(a)(4)-(5)..............  Yes............  [Reserved].
63.4(b)-63.4(c).............  Yes............  Circumvention/
                                                Fragmentation.
63.5(a)(1)..................  Yes............  Construction and
                                                Reconstruction--Applicab
                                                ility--Replace term
                                                ``source'' and
                                                ``stationary source'' in
                                                Sec.   63.5(a)(1) with
                                                ``affected source''.
63.5(a)(2)..................  Yes............
63.5(b)(1)..................  Yes............  Existing, New,
                                                Reconstructed Sources--
                                                Requirements.
63.5(b)(2)..................  No.............  [Reserved].
63.5(b)(3)..................  Yes............
63.5(b)(4)..................  Yes............
63.5(b)(5)..................  No.............  [Reserved].
63.5(b)(6)..................  Yes............
63.5(c).....................  No.............  [Reserved].
63.5(d)(1)(i)...............  Yes............  Application for Approval
                                                of Construction or
                                                Reconstruction--Except
                                                subpart CC specifies the
                                                application is submitted
                                                as soon as practicable
                                                before startup but no
                                                later than 90 days
                                                (rather than 60) after
                                                the promulgation date
                                                where construction or
                                                reconstruction had
                                                commenced and initial
                                                startup had not occurred
                                                before promulgation.
63.5(d)(1)(ii)..............  Yes............  Except that emission
                                                estimates specified in
                                                (63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H) are
                                                not required.
63.5(d)(1)(iii).............  Yes............
63.5(d)(2)..................  Yes............

[[Page 50741]]

 
63.5(d)(3)..................  Yes............
63.5(d)(4)..................  Yes............
63.5(e).....................  Yes............  Approval of Construction
                                                or Reconstruction.
63.5(f)(1)..................  Yes............  Approval of Construction
                                                or Reconstruction Based
                                                on State Review.
63.5(f)(2)..................  Yes............  Except that 60 days is
                                                changed to 90 days and
                                                cross-reference to
                                                (b)(2) does not apply.
63.6(a).....................  Yes............  Compliance with Standards
                                                and Maintenance--
                                                Applicability.
63.6(b)(1)..................  No.............
63.6(b)(2)..................  Yes............
63.6(b)(3)..................  Yes............
63.6(b)(4)..................  No.............
63.6(b)(5)..................  Yes............  Notification
                                                Requirements.
63.6(b)(6)..................  No.............  [Reserved].
63.6(b)(7)..................  Yes............
63.6(c)(1)..................  Yes............
63.6(c)(2)..................  No.............  Subpart CC specifies
                                                compliance dates.
63.6(c)(3)-(4)..............  No.............  [Reserved].
63.6(c)(5)..................  Yes............
63.6(d).....................  No.............  [Reserved].
63.6(e)(1)..................  Yes............  Operation and Maintenance
                                                Requirements.
63.6(e)(2)..................  No.............  [Reserved].
63.6(e)(3)(i)...............  Yes............  Startup, Shutdown, and
                                                Malfunction Plan (SSM).
63.6(e)(3)(ii)..............  No.............  [Reserved].
63.6(e)(3)(iii).............  Yes............
63.6(e)(3)(iv)..............  Yes............  Except that reports of
                                                actions not consistent
                                                with plan are not
                                                required within 2 and 7
                                                days of action but
                                                rather must be included
                                                in next periodic report.
63.6(e)(3)(v)-(ix)..........  Yes............
63.6(f)(1)..................  Yes............  Compliance with Emission
                                                Standards.
63.6(f)(2)(i)...............  Yes............
63.6(f)(2)(ii)..............  Yes............  Subpart CC specifies use
                                                of monitoring data in
                                                determining compliance.
63.6(f)(2)(iii)(A)-63.6(f)(2  Yes............
 )(iii)(C).
63.6(f)(2)(iii)(D)..........  No.............
63.6(f)(2)(iv)-(v)..........  Yes............
63.6(f)(3)..................  Yes............
63.6(g).....................  Yes............  Alternative Standard.
63.6(h).....................  No.............  Compliance with Opacity/
                                                VE Standards Subpart CC
                                                does not include opacity/
                                                VE standards.
63.6(i)(1)-63.6(i)(14)......  Yes............  Extension of Compliance.
63.6(i)(15).................  No.............  [Reserved].
63.6(i)(16).................  Yes............
63.6(j).....................  Yes............  Exemption from
                                                Compliance.
63.7(a)(1)..................  No.............  Performance Test
                                                Requirements--Applicabil
                                                ity and Dates--Subpart
                                                CC specifies the
                                                applicable test and
                                                demonstration
                                                procedures.
63.7(a)(2)..................  No.............  Test results must be
                                                submitted in the
                                                notification of
                                                compliance status report
                                                due 150 days after the
                                                compliance date.
63.7(a)(3)..................  Yes............
63.7(b).....................  Yes............  Notifications--Except
                                                Subpart CC specifies
                                                notification at least 30
                                                days prior to the
                                                scheduled test date
                                                rather than 60 days.
63.7(c).....................  Yes............  Quality Assurance/Test
                                                Plan.
63.7(d).....................  Yes............  Testing Facilities.
63.7(e)(1)-63.7(e)(2).......  Yes............  Conduct of Tests.
63.7(e)(3)..................  No.............  Subpart CC specifies the
                                                applicable methods and
                                                procedures.
63.7(e)(4)..................  Yes............
63.7(f).....................  Yes............  Alternative Test Method--
                                                Subpart CC specifies the
                                                applicable methods and
                                                provides alternatives.
63.7(g).....................  No.............  Data Analysis,
                                                Recordkeeping,
                                                Reporting--Subpart CC
                                                specifies performance
                                                test reports and
                                                requires additional
                                                records for continuous
                                                emission monitoring
                                                systems.
63.7(h)(1)-63.7(h)(3).......  Yes............  Waiver of Tests.
63.7(h)(4)..................  No.............
63.7(h)(5)..................  Yes............
63.8(a).....................  No.............  Monitoring Requirements--
                                                Applicability.
63.8(b)(1)..................  Yes............  Conduct of Monitoring.
63.8(b)(2)..................  Yes............
63.8(b)(3)..................  Yes............
63.8(c)(1)(i)...............  Yes............  CMS Operation and
                                                Maintenance.
63.8(c)(1)(ii)..............  Yes............
63.8(c)(1)(iii).............  Yes............
63.8(c)(2)..................  Yes............

[[Page 50742]]

 
63.8(c)(3)..................  Yes............  Except that operational
                                                status verification
                                                includes completion of
                                                manufacturer written
                                                specifications or
                                                installation operation,
                                                and calibration of the
                                                system or other written
                                                procedures that provide
                                                adequate assurance that
                                                the equipment will
                                                monitor accurately.
63.8(c)(4)..................  No.............  Monitoring frequency is
                                                specified in subpart CC.
63.8(c)(5)-63.8(c)(8).......  No.............
63.8(d).....................  Yes............  Quality Control.
63.8(e).....................  Yes............  CMS Performance
                                                Evaluation--May be
                                                required by
                                                Administrator.
63.8(f)(1)..................  Yes............  Alternative Monitoring
                                                Method.
63.8(f)(2)..................  Yes............
63.8(f)(3)..................  Yes............
63.8(f)(4)(i)-(iv)..........  Yes............
63.8(f)(5)(i)-(iii).........  Yes............
63.8(f)(6)..................  No.............
63.8(g).....................  No.............  Subpart CC specifies data
                                                reduction for CMS.
63.9(a).....................  Yes............  Notification
                                                Requirements--Applicabil
                                                ity--Duplicate
                                                notification of
                                                compliance status report
                                                to RA may be required.
63.9(b)(1)(i)...............  Yes............  Initial Notifications.
63.9(b)(1)(ii)..............  Yes............
63.9(b)(1)(iii).............  Yes............
63.9(b)(2)..................  Yes............
63.9(b)(3)..................  No.............  [Reserved].
63.9(b)(4)..................  Yes............
63.9(b)(5)..................  Yes............
63.9(c).....................  Yes............  Request for Compliance
                                                Extension.
63.9(d).....................  Yes............  New Source Notification
                                                for Special Compliance
                                                Requirements.
63.9(e).....................  Yes............  Except notification is
                                                required at least 30
                                                days before test.
63.9(f).....................  Yes............  Notification of VE/
                                                Opacity Test.
63.9(g).....................  No.............
63.9(h).....................  Yes............
63.9(i).....................  Yes............  Adjustment of Deadlines.
63.9(j).....................  No.............  Change in Previous
                                                Information.
63.10(a)....................  Yes............  Recordkeeping/Reporting--
                                                Applicability.
63.10(b)(1).................  Yes............
63.10(b)(2)(i)-(xiv)........  Yes............
63.10(b)(3).................  Yes............
63.10(c)....................  Yes............  Additional CMS
                                                Recordkeeping.
63.10(d)(1).................  No.............  General Reporting
                                                Requirements.
63.10(d)(2).................  Yes............  Performance Test Results.
63.10(d)(3).................  Yes............
63.10(d)(4).................  Yes............  Progress Reports.
63.10(d)(5)(i)..............  Yes............  Startup, Shutdown, and
                                                Malfunction Reports--
                                                Except that reports are
                                                not required if actions
                                                are consistent with SSM
                                                plan, unless requested
                                                by permitting authority.
63.10(d)(5)(ii).............  Yes............  Except that actions taken
                                                during a startup, shut-
                                                down, or malfunction
                                                that are not consistent
                                                with the plan do not
                                                need to be reported
                                                within 2 and 7 days of
                                                commencing and
                                                completing the action,
                                                respectively, but must
                                                be included in next
                                                periodic report.
63.10(e)(1).................  Yes............  Additional CMS Reports.
63.10(e)(2).................  No.............
63.10(e)(3).................  Yes............  Excess Emissions/CMS
                                                Performance Reports.
63.10(e)(4).................  No.............
63.10(f)....................  Yes............  Recordkeeping/Reporting
                                                Waiver.
63.11.......................  Yes............  Control Device
                                                Requirements Applicable
                                                to flares.
63.12.......................  Yes............  State Authority and
                                                Delegations.
63.13.......................  Yes............  Addresses.
63.14.......................  Yes............  Incorporation by
                                                Reference.
63.15.......................  Yes............  Availability of
                                                Information/
                                                Confidentiality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E7-17009 Filed 8-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P