[6560-50-P]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR PartParts 61 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0147; FRL-          ]

RIN 2060-AO55

A2060

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From  Petroleum
Refineries and National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations

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 .  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  and 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.  In
this action, we are also proposing two options for amendments to the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum
Refineries which add emissions standards for cooling towers and
amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Benzene Waste
Operations.

DATES:  Comments must be received on or before [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM
DATE OF PUBLICATION].

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146 (for petroleum refineries) or EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0147
(for benzene waste operations), by one of the following methods:  

  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov :  Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

E-mail:    HYPERLINK "mailto:a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov" 
a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov .

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 or National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants:  Benzene Waste Operations; Amendments,
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 (for petroleum refineries) or EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0147
(for benzene waste operations).  EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public docket without change and may be
made available online at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" 
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   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  or e-mail.  The  
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  website 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   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" 
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   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  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   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  or in hard copy at
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Petroleum Refineries:  Residual Risk Standards Docket or National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:  Benzene Waste
Operations; Amendments, 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:    HYPERLINK
"mailto:lucas.bob@epa.gov"  lucas.bob@epa.gov . 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.  General Information

A.  Does this action apply to me?

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

Category	NAICS1 Code	Examples of Regulated Entities

Industry . . .	32411	Petroleum refineries located at a major source that
are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC.

	22121

324110

32411

331111

32512-32518

562211

	Chemical manufacturing plants, petroleum refineries, coke by-product
recovery plants, and commercial hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities that manage waste generated by these industries that
are subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF. 

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 Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries) and the
applicability criteria in 40 CFR 61.340 of subpart FF (National Emission
Standard for Benzene Waste Operations (BWON)).  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   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  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) or EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0147 (for benzene waste
operations).  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 [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS FROM DATE OF
PUBLICATION], we will hold a public hearing on [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM
DATE OF PUBLICATION].  If you are interested in attending the public
hearing, contact 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)?

G.  What amendments to the national emission standards for

    benzene waste operations are we proposing?

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 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.”  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).

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 [thea maximum exposed] individual is no higher than
lifetime cancer risk of approximately 1-in-10 thousand, that risk level
is considered 00-in-1 million should ordinarily be the upper end of the
range of acceptable.” risks associated with an individual lifetime
cancer source of pollution.  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 MIRthe acceptability of maximum risk,
rather than a rigid line for acceptability, the Agency intends to weigh
itwe explained in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP, that risk levels should also
be weighed 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 , including the following:

The numbers of persons exposed within each individual lifetime risk
range and associated incidence within, typically, a 50 kilometer (km)
(about 30 miles) exposure radius around facilities, the;

The science policy assumptions and estimation uncertainties associated
with the risk measures, weight; 

Weight of the scientific evidence for human health  effects, other;

Other quantified or unquantified health effects, effects;

Effects due to co--location of facilities, and co--emission of
pollutants.” ; and

	The overall incidence of cancer or other serious health effects within
the exposed population.

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.

The BWON applies to owners and operators of chemical manufacturing
plants, coke by-product recovery plants, petroleum refineries, and
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.  Emission
sources covered by this standard include wastewater collection,
treatment, and storage units that manage benzene-containing wastes and
wastewater.

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 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, methyl ethyl ketone, 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   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/iris.html" 
www.epa.gov/iris.html ,   HYPERLINK "http://www.atsdr.cdc.govlmrls.html"
 www.atsdr.cdc.govlmrls.html , and   HYPERLINK
"http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/acute_rels/index.html" 
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
§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 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)).  Finally, we
are also proposing to revise and (f)(2)provide clarifications to the
BWON.  The wastewater provisions of the Refineries MACT 1 Rule
cross-reference the provisions of the BWON.  In enforcement actions and
through questions and comments we have received from the public, we
recognize that the provisions of that rule should be clarified to ensure
compliance as intended when the rule was promulgated.  Chemical
manufacturing plants, coke by-product recovery plants, and commercial
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities that manage
waste generated by these industries are also subject to BWON, so these
changes are also applicable to them.  

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 our 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.  A detailed
discussion of the proposed amendments to the BWON is included in section
IV.G 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 RefineryRefineries 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 RefineryRefineries 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 is based on the MACT floor analysis and would reject
imposing controls beyond the MACT floor.  Under this option,require 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.  A leak into the cooling tower water
for new sources is defined as a mass leak rate of 100 pounds of total
organic HAP per day or a mass leak rate of 10 pounds of any single
organic HAP per day or greater.  

Under the The second option, we would select a control option is based
on our the 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, aA 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 potential 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 and clarifications to the BWON.  The proposed clarifications
to the BWON are discussed in detail in section IV.G.  The proposed
amendments to the Petroleum Refineries MACT 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, anyAny 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 EBUenhanced biological treatment units, 3 years is
necessary to perform tests of benzene destruction efficiency, to
calculatedetermine the overall effectiveness of the EBU using the
procedures in Appendix C, to establish appropriate monitoring provisions
and install and test necessary equipment, their system and to make
modifications to the EBU ifas necessary to increase the efficiency of
the system to meet the this proposed requirementsrule.  For storage
tanks, 3 years are being proposed to allow flexibility in the addition
of the guidepoleis necessary to add controls for safety and operational
concerns.  In promulgating similar requirements for storage the event
that tanks, would be required to be emptied and degassed for the
proposed retrofits we have extendedare considering extending the
compliance time until to 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.

The proposed amendments to the BWON would become effective on the day of
publication of the final amendments in the Federal Register.  We are
proposing that existing refineries and facilities affected by the BWON
amendments comply no later than 3 years after the effective date.  Any
new facility would be required to comply upon startup.  We are proposing
the 3-year compliance date pursuant to section 112(i) of the CAA.  The
three year compliance date is necessary in cases where owners and
operators may need time to assess new compliance strategies, conduct
sampling and analysis of waste streams, and install or modify controls,
if necessary.  

IV.  Rationale for Proposed Amendments

A.  What actions are we proposing for cooling towers 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 costs 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 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/pounds per day of a single organic HAP and
less than 100 lbs/pounds per 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/pounds per day or greater of a single organic HAP and 100 lbs/pounds
per 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
EstimatesXXXX).  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 (see
XXXX).  

As part of our beyond the floor analysis, we considered In considering
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 lbs of any single organic HAP or
greater than or equal to 100 pounds lb 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 lb of any single organic HAP or
greater than or equal to 100 pounds lb 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

Option	Monitoring Cost ($1,000)	

Product Recovery Credit

($1,000/yr)	Total Annual Cost ($1,000/yr)	HAP Emissions (tons/yr HAP)
Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton)





	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).

Option	Capital Cost ($1,000)	Total Annual Cost ($1,000/yr)	Emissions
reduction (tons/yr HAP)	Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton)





Overall	Incremental

1

(MACT Floor)	--	750	377	2,000	-







	2	--	-1,590	1,720	-920	XXXX



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 $1,750$XXXX/ton of HAP
emissions controlled, which indicates a cost savings above the MACT
floor option andwe think 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 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 the 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.  The 153 refineries included in the database are believed to
be all of the sources in the category.

C.  What are the residual risks from petroleum refineries?

***NOTE:  All risk and cost estimates are undergoing internal EPA
review***

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 refinerythe individual facing
the highest estimated exposure over a 70-year lifetime.

Table 2.  Risk Estimates Due to HAP Exposure Based on 70-Year Exposure
Duration

Parameter	Results for Refinery MACT 1 Source Category source category

Maximum individual lifetime cancer risk (in 1a million)	70

Maximum hazard index1

(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)	0.04-0.0910

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. 
However, an HI exceeding 1 does not translate to a probability that
adverse effects occur.  Rather, it suggests the possibility that adverse
health effects may occur.

We estimate that approximately 90 million people live within 50
kilometers (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 0.0405 and 0.0910 cases per
year, or 1 case every 1110 to 2520 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
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.

-inhalation risks and potential adverse environmental impacts are judged
to be insignificant. 

For the ecological assessment, two exceedances (cadmium and PAH) of
ecological toxicity benchmarks were observed when examining the
predicted based on the comparison of the TRIM.FaTE media concentrations
to the ecological toxicity benchmarks (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 impactimpacts 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 The
primary uncertainties is found inin this risk characterization focus
around the Draft site specific emissions data set.  These uncertainties
are presented in this section of the preamble.  While other aspects of
the assessment, including dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure
estimates, dose-response relationships, and adverse environmental
effects all bring some degree of uncertainty to the assessment, these
uncertainties are secondary if emissions and site specific
characteristics are not represented correctly.  A fuller discussion of
these secondary uncertainties are discussed in both the “Residual Risk
Assessment for Petroleum Refining Sources (August” (July 2007),) and
the “Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Assessment Plan” (November
2006), both of which are 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 maximum
individual lifetime cancer risk associated with exposures to HAP
emissions from the sources covered by the Refinery MACT 1 rule is
70-in-1 million.  Because the MIR maximum individual lifetime cancer
risk is less than 100-in-1 million, the risk is acceptable.  However,
since the MIR maximum individual lifetime cancer risk 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 are necessary. 

In making If we determine that the existing MACT standard poses a risk
greater than 1-in-1 million, the next step is to determine whether
additional standards are necessary to protect public health with an
ample margin of safety.  In making this 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 regulatory alternatives for each of the
Refinery MACT 1 emissions sources for providing an ample margin of
safety.  In developing the control optionsregulatory alternatives, 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.

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 options based on lowering the Group 1 thresholds exceeds
$40,000 per ton of HAP reduced and $400,000 per ton of benzene reduced.

b2.  Equipment Leak Control Measures

	For equipment leaks, we evaluated options of 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.

c3.  Storage Vessel Control Measures

For storage vessels, we evaluated two control alternativesoptions 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 1,046054 tpy and benzene emissions by
10569 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.

d4.  Wastewater Control Measures

For refinery wastewater systems, the refinery MACT standard is based on
the BWON requirements (55 FR 8346, 58 FR 3095).  The.  Since 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, it already achieves 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  and therefore no additional control options
were considered.  To improve the emissions data used in the risk
assessment.  As part of this effort, refinery trade organizations
provided to EPA with detailed benzene emissions data from 22 petroleum
refineries.  Along with the emissions data, respondents were requested
to provide the methodology and basis for their emission estimates.  A
review of information collected during the 22 Refinery Study indicates
that few refineries estimate any benzene emissions from the EBU.  As
these refineries are 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, we conclude that the
emission estimates used to assess residual risk often 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
indicatesindicated that these sources could contribute significantly to
riskhave risks, on an individual source basis, exceeding 10-in-1
million.  Therefore, we are evaluating a control proposing an 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.   to ensure the
EBU are achieving the ample margin of safety as intended by the BWON
rule.

e.  Cooling Tower Control MeasuresTowers

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)

	As indicated previously, the residual risk from petroleum refineries
after imposition of the Refinery MACT 1 rule is acceptable.  Analysis of
the potential emissions at the proposed MACT action levels indicates
that the residual risks from cooling towers are acceptable.  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.  .  See section IV.A
of this preamble for our analysis of monthly monitoring and leak repair
requirements.  Therefore, we propose that there are no additional
controls for cooling towers beyond the monthly leak detection and repair
requirements we are proposing under section 112(d)(2) necessary to
provide an ample margin of safety.  	

	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***TO BE
PROVDED (undergoing internal 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)

a7.  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 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. [***EXPLANATION OF SAVINGS CALCULATIONS TO BE
INCLUDED***]

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

Control Require-ment	Total Capital Investment

($ million)	Total Annualized Cost without Recovery ($ million)	Product
Recovery Credit ($ million)	Total Annual-ized Cost ($ million)	HAP
Emis-sions 

(tpy)	Average Cost per Ton of HAP ($/ton)

Option 1 (Baseline)	0	0	0	0	1,867	0

Option 2 Storage Vessel Controls	2.76	1.1	-4.6	-3.5	821	-3,340

Control requirement	Total installed capital cost

($ million)	Total annualized cost

($ million)	Total HAP emission reduction

(tpy)	Average cost per ton of HAP ($/ton)

Option 2 Storage vessel controls	2.76	-3.5	1,054	-2,277



Table 4.  Risk Impacts of Regulatory Alternative for Storage Vessels

Parameter

	Option 1/

Baseline	Option 2 

Storage Vessel Control

Risk to Most Exposed IndividualRisk to most exposed individual	Cancer
(in 1 million)	70	70

	Noncancer (HI)	.3	.3

Size of Population at Cancer Risk1Size of population at cancer risk	>
100- in- 1 million	0	0

	> 10- in- 1 million

	6,000	5,100400

	> 1- in- 1 million	460,000	393414,000

Number of Plantsplants at Cancer Risk Level1cancer risk level	> 100- in-
1 million	0	0

	> 10- in- 1 million

	21	1518

	> 1- in- 1 million	96	91

Population with HI > 1211

0	0

No of Plantsplants with HI > 1

0	0

Cancer Incidenceincidence

0.04-.09077	0.03-.08069

Cancer Incidence Reduction (Percent)Cancer incidence reduction (percent)

NA	10-25

HAP Emission Reduction (Percent)HAP emission reduction (percent)

NA	1513.5

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.
 However, an HI exceeding 1 does not translate to a probability that
adverse effects occur.  Rather, it suggests the possibility that adverse
health effects may occur.

 

	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 controlthat alternative.

The Agency would conclude under proposed option 1this proposal 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
reductionsimprovements in health risks.  Baseline cancer incidence under
the current Refinery MACT 1 rule is estimated at 0.04 5 to .091, or
0.0708 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 maximum individual cancer risk is not reduced from 70- in-1 a
million by additional control), and there are no noncancer HI Hazard
Index 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 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 100hundred 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 6 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.  

b8.  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.  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

Control Requirementrequirement	Total Installed Capital Cost

($ Million)Total installed capital cost

($ million)	Total Annualized Cost

Total annualized cost

($ million)	HAP Emissions 

Total HAP emission reduction

(tpy)	Average Cost Per Toncost per ton of HAP ($/Ton)ton)

Option 1 (Baseline)2

EBU performance demonstration and 

monitoring	0	01.1	5,0003750	300

Option 2

EBU Performance Demonstra-tion and 

Monitoring	0	1.1	3,200	600



	Impacts presented in Table 5 assume that 50 percent of EBU may degrade
benzene at anEBUs on average currently achieve a control efficiency of
80 percent.%, although EPA has no data on which to base this assumption.
 In the development of the BWON, we estimated that EBU EBUs would
achieve between 88 to 93 percent92% control efficiency (Final NESHAP
Standards for Waste Operations:  Basis for Impact Calculations, Feb.
1990),[***CITATION WILL BE ADDED], on average, and made the finding that
the reductions achieved from EBU would result in acceptable risk, and
but 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 appendixAppendix C of 40 CFR Part 63 to estimate the performance of
biological treatment systems and have required the use of
appendixAppendix 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 appendixAppendix 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.yr.  Once the performance evaluation is completed,
refineries are expected to develop operating limits for the minimum
mixed liquor suspended solids (MLVSS) concentration and the maximum food
to microorganism ratio, which must be determined on a weekly basis. 
Although owners and operators of EBUEBUs are expected to routinely
conduct these analyses, we estimated that an additional cost of
$5,000/yearyr 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
thatTherefore, refineries using EBUEBUs for treatment of affected
wastewater streams would incur, on average, a cost of $10,000/yearyr
over the first 5 years.  [NOTE: POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL COSTS UNDER
REVIEW.]  

	Table 6 represents 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.are only 80% effective, on average, are estimated (hypothetical)
and were not modeled.  The baseline HAP emissions were assumed to double
from the source category from 7,266 TPY (NEI baseline) to 14,427 TPY
under this scenario.  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. effectively
brought the risk impacts back down to the original baseline modeled from
the NEI dataset. It should be noted that this is not a rigorous risk
analysis, but a rough estimate of risk impacts based on projected
wastewater emissions.  

Table 6.  Risk Impacts of Regulatory Alternative for EBU

Parameter	

RTR Baseline	 Option 1 Adjusted (Hypothetical) Baseline	Option 2

EBU Controls (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 Risk1	> 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 Level1	> 100-in-1 million	0	0	0

	> 10-in-1 million

	21	41	36

	> 1-in-1 million	96	108	104

Population with HI > 12

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

Parameter

	 Option 1/Adjusted (Hypothetical) Baseline	Option 2

EBU Controls (Hypothetical)

Risk to most exposed individual	Cancer (in 1 million)	100	70

	Noncancer (HI)	.6	.3

Size of population at cancer risk	> 100 in 1 million	6,000	0

	> 10 in 1 million

	12,000	6,000

	> 1 in 1 million	920,000	460,000

Number of plants at cancer risk level	> 100 in 1 million	21	0

	> 10 in 1 million

	96	21

	> 1 in 1 million	153	96

Population with HI > 11

0	0

No of plants with HI > 1

0	0

Cancer incidence

0.08-.2	0.04-.1

Cancer incidence reduction (percent)

NA	50

HAP emission reduction (percent)

NA	50

1  If the Hazard Index (HI) is calculated to be less or equal to than 1,
then no adverse health effects are expected as a result of the exposure.
 However, an HI exceeding 1 does not translate to a probability that
adverse effects occur.  Rather, it suggests the possibility that adverse
health effects may occur.

 	 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 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 0.01.04
and 0.02 1 cases per year (i.e., prevent one cancer case every 100ten to
5025 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.C. 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 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 proposedidentified to meet achieve an ample margin of
safety under section 112(f)(2).  Based), based on the consideration of
the uncertainty of the cost ofimpacts of further control for individual
refineries and the relatively small reductions in health risks that are
achieved by these controls. In addition, we are proposing that these
controls are not necessary under 112(d)(6).  Alternately, if we
concludeamendments to BWON as discussed 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).IV.G of this preamble. 

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.

G.  What amendments to the national emission standards for benzene waste
operations are we proposing?

The final BWON rule (55 FR 8346, March 7, 1990) establishes national
emission standards for wastes containing benzene that are generated by
chemical manufacturing plants, coke by-product recovery plants, and
petroleum refineries.  The rule addresses wastes from a wide variety of
processes and provides compliance options for controlling air emissions
and treating wastes to remove or destroy benzene.  Over the past several
years, numerous petroleum refineries have entered into consent decrees
with EPA regarding certain emissions sources and their associated
regulatory requirements.  A key focus of many consent decree
requirements was the correct implementation of the BWON.  The increased
scrutiny of the BWON requirements caused by the consent decrees
highlighted the need to clarify some of the provisions in BWON to ensure
that the requirements are more easily understood and that the rule
achieves the emission reductions that were originally intended.  Over
the past several years, enforcement personnel, affected facilities, and
engineering consultants (hereon referred to as commenters) raised
several questions and issues related to interpretation and application
of specific provisions in the rule.  We are proposing clarifications to
the rule and providing additional interpretive guidance in this proposal
preamble to address these questions and issues.  These clarifications
are necessary for the consistent implementation of the rule requirements
and to address uncertainties in past and future compliance
determinations, and are not expected to result in significant cost
impact to any individual facility.  These proposed revisions would apply
to owners and operators of chemical manufacturing plants, coke
by-product recovery plants, petroleum refinieries, and hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.  Emission sources covered
by this standard include wastewater collection, treatment, and storage
units that manage benzene-containing wastes and wastewater.  We discuss
each of the proposed clarifications below and provide the background and
rationale for the proposed changes.

1.  Proposed Clarifications to the Determination of Total Annual Benzene
(TAB)

	Several commenters expressed some uncertainty and confusion related to
determining the TAB, which is used to determine the rule’s
applicability (a TAB of 10 Mg/yr or more subjects the facility to
detailed control, treatment, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements).  Clarifications were requested as to what is and what is
not a “waste” (with some specific examples of both) and what is
“integral to the production process,” which is part of the
definition of point of generation (POG).  The POG is important because
that is where the TAB is determined in most cases, and the POG is prior
to handling or treatment in an operation that is not an integral part of
the production process.  

We are including in the definition of “waste” some specific examples
to address these questions, many of which were raised because certain
wastes are sold for recovery or reuse of constituents, and others have
value that make onsite recovery or recycle of constituents economically
beneficial for the facility.  The fact that a material may be sold or
have beneficial use onsite does not preclude it from being a waste. 
Waste includes “any material...that is discarded or is being
accumulated, stored, or ... treated prior to being discarded, recycled,
or discharged.”  The benzene in a waste stream (with certain
exceptions discussed below) is included in the TAB if the flow-weighted
annual average water content of the waste stream is greater than 10
percent or if the waste is mixed with water or other wastes at any time
and the mixture has a water content greater than 10 percent.  Some
specific examples that we are adding to the definition of “waste
stream” are spent caustic, slop oil, sour water skimmings, and the
float from dissolved air flotation units.

The TAB is determined at the POG (with a few exceptions discussed below)
when it exits the process and before exposure to the atmosphere or
removal of benzene in a waste management unit.  The rule defines POG as
“the location where the waste stream exits the process unit component
or storage tank prior to handling or treatment in an operation that is
not an integral part of the production process, or in the case of waste
management units that generate new wastes after treatment, the location
where the waste stream exits the waste management unit component.” 
For example, the POG for desalter water is at the exit of the desalter
vessel (a process unit) prior to the removal of benzene by exposure to
the atmosphere or by a treatment process.

There are three exceptions to determining the TAB at the POG:  (1) at
the exit of sour water strippers for sour water streams, (2) at the exit
of the ammonia still at coke by-product plants if the ammonia still
meets the definition of sour water stripper and the transfer of wastes
is through hard piping or enclosed systems, and (3) at the point the
waste enters the facility for hazardous waste treatment, storage, or
disposal facilities that receive wastes from offsite.  The rule clearly
states that the benzene determination for the TAB calculation for sour
water streams that are processed in sour water strippers is where the
water exits the sour water stripper.  Although we do not think a rule
clarification is needed, we are addressing a question here related to
mixing of other streams with sour water prior to the stripper.  The
benzene for the TAB calculation for waste streams not meeting the
definition of sour water that are mixed with sour water streams prior to
the sour water stripper is based on the benzene at their POG (not at the
exit to the stripper).  In addition, all benzene in the water exiting
the stripper is included in the TAB.  The streams that are not sour
water streams in this case are also subject to all applicable rule
requirements based on the benzene concentration and benzene quantity
before mixing.

	We have received questions that asked whether storage tanks, feed
vessels, or other units that may contain or manage sour water prior to
the sour water stripper must be controlled for benzene emissions under
the rule.  Since the benzene quantity in sour water is determined at the
exit of the sour water stripper, it would seem that these units would
not have to be controlled under any of the compliance options.  However,
to qualify for using the stripper exit as the POG, the stripper must
meet the definition of sour water stripper in the rule.  The second of
three criteria in the definition states the stripper “has the sour
water streams transferred to the stripper through hard piping or other
enclosed system.”  Our intent in developing the provisions for sour
water and sour water stripping was that all units managing or storing
the sour water prior to the stripper must be enclosed and vented to a
control device.  We propose to clarify in the rule that for the exit of
the stripper to qualify as the POG for sour water, vessels containing
the sour water prior to stripping must meet the closed vent and control
device requirements in §61.349.

The second of three criteria in the definition states the stripper
“has the sour water streams transferred to the stripper through hard
piping or other enclosed system.”  Our intent in developing the
provisions for sour water and sour water stripping was that all units
managing or storing the sour water prior to the stripper must be
enclosed and vented to a control device.  We propose to clarify in the
rule that for the exit of the stripper to qualify as the POG for sour
water, vessels containing the sour water prior to stripping must meet
the closed vent and control device requirements in §61.349.

	We are clarifying what is integral to the production process by giving
some examples because of the importance of the term in determining the
POG for a waste.  In general, an operation is integral to the production
process if it is used to process or store the primary feedstocks at a
facility, to store or produce the primary intermediate or final
products, or to supply heating or cooling in the production of
intermediate or final products.  It does not include operations used for
treating or recovering constituents from by-product streams for recycle
to the process, recovery for sale, or treatment to meet discharge
requirements.  Examples of operations integral to the production process
include process units as defined in the rule, storage tanks for
feedstock and intermediate or final products, and operations used for
supplying heating or cooling.  For example, a cooling system that
includes a cooling tower that supplies cooling water to a process
unit’s heat exchanger is integral to the process; however, any
wastewater blowdown from the cooling tower would be a waste with a POG
at the discharge point from the cooling water recirculation loop.

	We received requests for clarification of the term “recycled to the
process” because the emission control and treatment requirements of
the rule no longer apply to a waste stream once it has been recycled to
the process.  We decided it would be more useful to clarify this concept
in the preamble and provide examples rather than attempting a definition
in the rule.  A waste is recycled to the process once it has been
returned to a process unit as defined in the rule, to a storage tank for
the primary feedstock or intermediate or final products, to a process
feed tank, or to other operations associated with the process and not
with waste management.  For example, controls for slop oil are not
required under the rule once the slop oil has been returned to a crude
oil storage tank or to a feed tank for the distillation column.  The
transfer of slop oil to a storage tank dedicated to slop oil or for
mixing other recovered materials is not recycle to the process.  Once a
recovered material, such as float from the dissolved air flotation unit,
has been sent to the coker for recovery of its carbon content, it has
been recycled to the process (i.e., the coker is a process unit).

	The rule address many aspects of representative sampling, such as the
use of static mixers to obtain a homogeneous sample, analysis of wastes
with multiple phases, and sampling before exposure to the atmosphere. 
We are emphasizing the importance of representative sampling for the TAB
determination (and determinations associated with the compliance
options) based on the difficulties several facilities have had in
obtaining representative samples for wastes with multiple phases and
those that are generated at changing flow rates.  The experience shows
that many facilities may have underestimated the quantity of benzene in
waste at the POG because the sum of benzene at the POG in many instances
was less than the benzene entering a common collection point after the
streams were combined.  When multiple waste streams are combined, we
recommend determining the waste quantity and benzene concentration of
the combined streams and comparing the benzene quantity for the combined
streams with the sum of the benzene quantities determined at the POG for
individual waste streams.  Any discrepancies should be investigated, and
in particular, the owner or operator should be sure that the benzene in
each phase of multiple phase wastes is measured at the POG and that
there is an accurate accounting of the waste quantity associated with
each phase.  In addition, we are adding a clarification to the rule that
the sampling must be conducted when the process unit or waste management
unit generating the waste stream and all equipment handling the waste
stream are operating normally as determined by all monitored process
parameters, such a process flow rates, temperatures, pressures, etc.

	Questions have arisen as to whether the 10 percent water criterion used
throughout the rule is based on volume or weight.  The rule clearly
states that it is “on a volume basis as total water.”  We emphasize
“total” water because it includes the water in an oil-water emulsion
as well as that in a separate water phase and any dissolved in the
organic phase (which would be quite low).  Total water is not simply
based on the volume of water in the water phase but is based on all
water in a representative sample of the waste stream. 

	We have received questions as to whether wastes generated offsite must
be included in the TAB calculation.  We propose clarifying in the rule
that a waste generated offsite is included in a facility’s TAB
calculation if the waste was generated by a chemical manufacturing
plant, coke by-product recovery plant, or petroleum refinery and the
water content is greater than 10 percent (either before or after mixing
with water or other wastes).  A specific example is that if ballast
water generated at a marine vessel loading operation that is not part of
the petroleum refinery is transferred to the refinery, the benzene in
the ballast water is not included in the refinery’s TAB because it was
not generated by one of the three affected source categories.  However,
if the ballast water is added to the wastewater treatment system and
mixed with regulated benzene wastes, the mixture must be managed
according to the rule requirements.  If the marine vessel loading
operation is part of the refinery and located at the refinery, benzene
in the ballast water is included in the refinery’s TAB.      

	The rule specifically excludes from the TAB calculation benzene in
wastes from remediation activities at the facility, such as the
excavation of contaminated soil, pumping and treating of groundwater,
and recovery of product from soil or groundwater.  We are clarifying
that if the facility is managing remediation waste generated offsite or
any other waste generated offsite, the benzene in the waste is included
in the TAB if the waste was generated by a chemical manufacturing plant,
coke by-product recovery plant, or petroleum refinery and the water
content is greater than 10 percent (either before or after mixing with
water or other wastes).  Not all excavated material is a waste because
excavation can be associated with site preparation for the installation
or reconstruction of equipment and other construction activities.  We
are clarifying that excavated material is a waste under subpart FF only
if it is associated with site remediation.

	We are also proposing a simplification to reduce the burden associated
with TAB determinations at facilities with a TAB of over 10 Mg/yr, but
at the same time, ensuring that the benzene quantity is accurately
determined.  Some of the larger affected facilities have hundreds of
small waste streams, and although the facility may know without doubt
they are subject to the control and treatment requirements of the rule,
each of these waste streams must be evaluated for benzene concentration
and waste quantity.  For example, blowdown and knock out drums can be
waste management units, and they may be interconnected throughout the
facility with the transfer of wastes from one drum to another drum or
central collection point that also receives other waste streams.  Each
unit could be considered as having its own POG, but determining the
benzene quantity for each unit could be burdensome and result in
multiple counting of benzene.  We are proposing that under certain
specific circumstances, the benzene quantity for the TAB calculation for
waste streams may be determined at an end-of-line collection point after
they are combined.  We propose that the end-of-line determination may be
made instead of a determination for each and every waste stream if the
facility has a TAB of over 10 Mg/yr; the upstream units that contain the
wastes are enclosed and vented to a flare, the fuel gas system or a
benzene emission control device; the waste streams are hardpiped to
waste management units or discharged into individual drain systems that
are equipped with flexible shields or other devices that enclose the
space between the pipe discharging the waste to the drain receiving the
waste; and the common collection point for determining the TAB is prior
to any treatment to remove benzene and prior to exposure to the
atmosphere.  We are also proposing that any facility using this TAB
determination option must continue to identify each individual waste
stream and its point of generation.

	When the flow-weighted annual average benzene concentration is
determined by measurements of the waste stream, the rule requires a
minimum of three representative samples.  However, the rule does not
describe when the samples are to be taken (e.g., at the same time or
separated in time), how often (or if) the measurements must be repeated,
and what is a “representative sample.”  We are proposing
clarifications to address these considerations.  For waste streams that
are generated on a relatively continuous basis over time, we are
proposing that the three samples may be taken at the same time or at an
interval left to the discretion of the owner or operator during normal
process operating conditions because the concentration should be
reasonably consistent unless the process changes.  For waste generated
by batch processes or a process that operates intermittently, we are
proposing that a sample be taken from three different batches or
intermittent cycles.  We are not proposing clarifying changes to the
frequency for determining the benzene concentration.  The rule is clear
and requires the 

TAB determination be repeated when there is a change in the process
generating the waste that could increase the TAB to 1 Mg/yr or more or
to 10 Mg/yr or more.

We understand that processes, production rates, and unit configurations
change over time.  Although the rule states that the TAB is to be based
on current configuration and operating conditions, we propose clarifying
in the rule that the annual TAB determination must represent the waste
stream characteristics based on the configuration and operating
conditions of the facility during the operating year associated with the
annual report.  We also propose providing an option to allow the TAB to
be based on the configuration and operating conditions of each calendar
year (January through December).  We are also proposing that the TAB
report for a calendar year be submitted by April 1st of the following
year for those facilities choosing to use a calendar year as the basis
for the annual report.

2.  Proposed Clarifications to the Compliance Options

The rule includes compliance options to provide flexibility for
controlling and treating the variety of wastes from several different
processes and to accommodate differences in configurations of both
processes that generate wastes and waste treatment units.  We are
proposing clarifications and minor changes to certain compliance options
to remove uncertainty with respect to the requirements for each of the
options and to improve consistency among options.  The three compliance
options discussed below include:  (1) treating process wastewater to
achieve a total annual benzene quantity of 1 Mg/yr (§61.342(d)(2)(i)),
(2) the 2 Mg/yr exemption for certain waste streams
(§61.342(c)(3)(ii)(B)), and (3) the 6 Mg/yr benzene quantity option
(§61.342(e)(2)(i)).

	Our discussions with affected facilities, enforcement personnel, and
engineering consultants have indicated that the 1 Mg/yr treatment option
cited above is not used by any facilities and has no practical
application because the other two options offer much more flexibility. 
The option is an artifact of the original promulgation and no longer has
any utility.  Consequently, we are proposing to delete the option in
§61.342(d)(2) to simplify the rule and avoid any confusion or questions
related to the non-functional compliance option.  We are specifically
requesting comment on the merits of this deletion and whether any
commenter knows of any facility that has applied the option in the past
or under what circumstances a facility might have chosen to use it in
the future.

	We are proposing to revise the procedures for determining the benzene
quantities for the 2 Mg/yr exemption to more accurately reflect the
actual operations at a facility during the year for which it is
determined.  Currently, the determination uses a maximum or upper-bound
estimate of annual waste quantity based on the same procedures for
determining TAB.  A more accurate and realistic procedure for making the
determination for a given year would be to use the actual waste
quantities for that year rather than the highest quantity in the past 5
years, the maximum design capacity of the waste management unit, or the
maximum waste generation rate (as the rule currently requires).  We are
proposing to revise the rule to require that the annual determination
for the 2 Mg/yr exemption compliance option discussed above be based on
the actual waste quantities for each calendar year and reported by April
1st of the following year.  We are also proposing to clarify that that
wastes generated by startup, shutdown, or malfunction events (including
spills) in a given year be accounted for in the benzene quantity
determinations for that year if they meet the criteria specified for
identifying the waste streams to be included in the determination.

	We are proposing clarifying revisions to the rule to address questions
and confusion related to the 2 Mg/yr exemption, the aggregation of
wastes, and where the benzene quantity must be determined for wastes
managed in controlled units.  The rule requires that the benzene
quantity for the 2 Mg/yr exemption (except for specific cases) be
determined at the POG; however, our intent was that the benzene quantity
be determined at the POG for uncontrolled wastes and when the waste
first exits a controlled waste management unit (before exposure to the
atmosphere) for wastes that are controlled for benzene emissions.  We
are proposing changes to the rule to make these clarifications.  We are
also clarifying that if waste streams are aggregated or mixed for
treatment (even with those waste streams that are exempted under the 2
Mg/yr compliance option), then the owner or operator is allowed a 1
Mg/yr exemption from the standards (under §61.348(b)(2)) for waste
management units receiving waste streams with a benzene concentration
less than 10 ppmw downstream from the mixing.

Some commenters have questioned whether the dilution prohibition in
§61.348(a)(3) applies to the aggregation or mixing of wastes to
facilitate management or treatment in a wastewater treatment system as
allowed in §61.348(a)(5).  We are clarifying in this preamble
discussion that the dilution prohibition does not apply to
§61.348(a)(5) and that it specifically applies only to wastes treated
in accordance with §61.348(a)(1)(i), which is a requirement to treat
the waste to remove benzene from the waste stream to a level less than
10 ppmw.  The control of the inlet concentration is especially important
for the proper operation of an enhanced biodegradation unit, and the
dilution prohibition was never intended for such units or for other
wastewater treatment units managing waste streams according to
§61.348(a)(5).  The rule is clear on this point as written;
consequently, we are not proposing any rule changes or clarifications to
address this question.

A few commenters asked if the treatment option for 99 percent removal of
benzene applied to each phase of a waste with both an oil phase and a
water phase or to the waste as a whole.  The concern was that a facility
could achieve 99 percent control simply by decanting the oil phase.  The
rule clearly requires the overall removal or destruction of 99 percent
of the benzene; consequently, the form of the waste is not relevant in
achieving this limit.  Moreover, it is difficult to envision a scenario
where phase separation would remove 99 percent of the benzene.

	The standards for treatment processes include options based on
compliance with other regulatory requirements, such as those developed
for hazardous wastes or for wastewater discharges.  For example, a
treatment process or waste stream is in compliance with the rule if the
waste stream is treated to a level that meets benzene-specific effluent
limitations or performance standards in accordance with Effluent
Guidelines and Standards in 40 CFR parts 401-464, and the treatment
process has a closed-vent system and control device that meets the rule
requirements.  See §61.348(d)(4).  When we developed this option, we
expected that the benzene concentration in the final discharge would
have to be low to meet direct discharge limits to surface water. 
However, this option also includes the opportunity for the facility to
send wastewater with high benzene concentrations and large benzene
quantities to a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW) for treatment
prior to discharge.  Benzene would be emitted during the transfer to the
POTW and at the POTW, and the high benzene emissions could result in
high levels of risk to the exposed population.  Our intent in allowing
offsite waste treatment was that the offsite facility would achieve a
level of emission control equivalent to the level of control that would
have been achieved onsite under the rule.  In addition, there are no
benzene-specific effluent limitations or performance standards;
consequently, this option has no value or practical application, and in
addition, could result in significant benzene emissions.  For these
reasons, we propose amending the rule to delete §61.348(d)(4).     

	For the 6 Mg/yr benzene quantity compliance option, we are proposing
that the benzene quantity determination be made as we described above
for the 2 Mg/yr exemption to more accurately reflect the actual
operations at a facility during the year for which it is determined.  A
more accurate and realistic procedure for making the benzene quantity
determination for a given year would be to use the actual waste
quantities for that year as we are proposing.

We are clarifying that organic waste streams (i.e., those with a water
content of 10 percent or less) should not be  included under the 6 Mg/yr
benzene quantity option if they have a benzene concentration of less
than 10 ppmw.  Our intent was not to require control of organic waste
streams with less than 10 ppmw benzene, as we stated in the original
proposal preamble (58 FR 3085).  The combination of low benzene
concentration, small waste quantities, and the low volatility of benzene
in organic wastes compared to the volatility of benzene in aqueous
wastes indicate that these organic wastes have a low emission potential
for benzene.  These wastes are usually managed in a manner to recover
and recycle the organic material, and in the event they were ever added
to or managed with aqueous wastes (e.g., in a wastewater treatment
system), the resulting mixture would be subject to the control and
treatment requirements in the rule.  Consequently, we are proposing to
clarify that wastes with 10 percent or less water (organic wastes) and a
benzene concentration less than 10 ppmw are not included in the
calculation of benzene quantity for the 6 Mg/yr benzene quantity
compliance option. 

	We are proposing clarifications related to the waste streams to be
included in determining the 6 Mg/yr benzene quantity and where the
determination is made.  The rule states that the benzene in wastes
entering an enhanced biodegradation unit are not counted toward the 6
Mg/yr if the benzene concentration is less than 10 ppmw and all prior
waste management units managing the wastes were in compliance with the
rule’s requirements for those management units.  The second part of
this provision results in making the 6 Mg/yr benzene quantity option
essentially useless if even only one uncontrolled waste stream enters
the enhanced biodegradation unit because all benzene entering the unit
would then be counted toward the 6 Mg/yr.  This was not our intent when
we developed the compliance option.  Consequently, we are proposing to
delete the requirement in §63.355(k)(4)(ii) that all prior waste
management units must be controlled according to the rule in order to
exclude the benzene quantity in a waste stream entering the
biodegradation unit from the 6 Mg/yr determination.

We are also clarifying our intent with respect to the reference to
§61.348(a) in the determination of the 6 Mg/yr benzene quantity in
paragraphs §61.355(k)(1) and (2).  Our intent was to require that the
determination be made either at the POG or at the outlet of waste
management units that are controlled for air emissions according to the
requirements of §§61.343 through 61.347, including waste management
units that are also treatment devices.  We included the reference to
§61.348(a) to make clear that waste treatment devices were included in
the list of waste management units controlled for air emissions. 
However, we agree that the reference to §61.348(a) is confusing because
the 6 Mg/yr option does not require treatment to the levels specified in
§61.348(a).  Therefore, we are eliminating the reference to §61.348(a)
in these paragraphs and are clarifying that waste treatment devices are
included by adding “or treats” to the phrase “as applicable to the
waste management unit that manages or treats the waste” when
referencing the air emission control requirements of §§61.343 through
61.347.  

	We are proposing changes to the monitoring requirements for the 6 Mg/yr
compliance option.  We propose that the benzene concentration of each
waste stream entering an enhanced biodegradation unit be determined at
least monthly to ensure it is less than 10 ppmw.  These monitoring
requirements are important to ensure that the units are properly
designed and operated and that the performance requirements are met on a
continuing basis.  Consequently, we are proposing to revise the rule to
apply the inlet monitoring requirements to provide assurance that
benzene emissions are controlled in the manner and to the degree that
they should be under that option.   

	We are proposing to correct an inadvertent omission in the notification
requirements for the 6 Mg/yr benzene quantity option when the owner or
operator chooses to comply with the requirements for certain waste
streams by transferring the wastes offsite to another facility for
treatment.  For this compliance option, the rule currently does not
require a notice to be included with each offsite waste shipment stating
that the waste contains benzene and must be managed and treated in
accordance with the rule’s provisions.  Although the benzene quantity
in the waste transferred offsite is included in the 6 Mg/yr allowance,
the receiving facility needs to be informed that the waste contains
benzene and may contribute to the receiving facility’s TAB
determination.  Such a notification is required for all other instances
when transfer offsite for treatment is used to comply with the rule.  We
are proposing to clarify that facilities using the 6 Mg/yr benzene
quantity option must include this notice with each offsite waste
shipment when using offsite treatment of the waste to meet the
requirements of the rule.

3.  Proposed Clarifications to the Monitoring Provisions

Since the rule was promulgated, carbon canisters have been widely used
as control devices to meet certain rule requirements.  Monitoring
frequency and carbon replacement requirements in the rule are based on
the design carbon replacement interval or maximum design flow rate. 
Several commenters have pointed out that the emission sources that use
the carbon canisters can have wide variations in their emission
characteristics; consequently, historical information based on the
actual application of the canisters at a specific emission source is
much more reliable than a theoretical design calculation.  In
particular, historical data provide a much better prediction of the
carbon replacement interval than would a design calculation.  We agree
and propose to revise the rule to allow the use of historical data from
actual operating experience rather than design data for determining the
carbon replacement interval and monitoring frequency. 

We are proposing clarifications that define breakthrough and how soon
the carbon must be replaced after breakthrough based on requirements
that have been applied to such control systems at many facilities
managing benzene wastes.  We propose that breakthrough occurs when a
concentration equal to or greater than 50 ppmw organic compounds or 5
ppmw benzene is detected at the outlet of the carbon canister, or for
dual canisters operated in series, at the outlet of the first canister. 
We are also proposing that after breakthrough occurs, the carbon must be
replaced within 8 hours of the detection of breakthrough for canisters
of 55 gallons or less and within 24 hours of the detection of a
breakthrough for canisters greater than 55 gallons.

 	Many facilities have installed two carbon canisters in series and
monitor the outlet concentration from the first canister.  This approach
ensures that there is adequate time to replace spent carbon before
breakthrough occurs on the second canister, and it eliminates emissions
during the time following breakthrough until the carbon is replaced.  We
are proposing a monitoring option for two carbon canisters in series to
provide flexibility for this method of operation and to be consistent
with monitoring requirements already applied to these dual canisters. 
The proposed option would allow monitoring the concentration in the
exhaust vent stream from the first canister in the series but before the
second canister on a monthly basis or at intervals no greater than 20
percent of the carbon replacement interval for a single canister system,
whichever is more frequent.  If the owner or operator chooses to monitor
a canister system for benzene and detects between 1 ppm and 5 ppm
benzene between the primary and secondary canisters, the option would
then require monitoring for breakthrough (at 5 ppm benzene) between the
primary and secondary carbon canisters weekly or at intervals no greater
than 20 percent of the carbon replacement interval for a single canister
system, whichever is more frequent.  In lieu of replacing the primary
canister within the specified time frame, the owner or operator with
dual canisters in series would be allowed to elect to monitor the outlet
of the secondary canister beginning on the day the breakthrough between
the primary and secondary canister is identified and each calendar day
thereafter.  This daily monitoring would continue until the primary
canister is replaced.  If the constituent being monitored (either
benzene or organic compounds) is detected at the outlet of the secondary
canister during this period of daily monitoring, both canisters would
have to be replaced within 8 hours of the detection of breakthrough.

	We have received comments and questions related to vacuum trucks, which
are subject to the requirements for containers, and specifically the
requirement for no detectable emissions for covered openings.  The
covered openings for vacuum trucks are insignificant sources of
emissions, and the monitoring to show no detectable emissions can be
burdensome.  In addition, the exhaust from the vacuum vent when the
vacuum truck is operating is a much more significant source of
emissions; however, the rule does not require control of the vented
exhaust because there is no practical demonstrated control device.  We
are proposing to exempt vacuum trucks from the requirement for no
detectable emissions from covered openings.  We are also requesting
public comment and additional information on this exemption and
potential emission controls for vacuum trucks.

4.  Impacts of the Proposed Clarifications

	We evaluated the potential impacts of the various proposed rules
changes and concluded that some changes would result in a small increase
in the monitoring and reporting burden for a few facilities and some
would result in a large decrease in the burden for a few facilities.  We
estimate there will not be an overall increase in burden but instead an
overall decrease, and there will not be any significant cost impact on
any individual facility.  EPA requests comment on our analysis of the
burden of the proposed revisions to the BWON as they apply to petroleum
refinieries as well as to all other affected source categories (e.g.,
chemical manufacturing plants, coke by-product recovery plants, and
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.

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 (and for Option 2,
the proposed revised standards), 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 ***TO BE PROVIDED (undergoing internal
review)*** 

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.

2.  Removal of 1 Mg/yr Option from BWON

As noteddiscussed 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. 
our proposal to remove the 1 Mg/yr option in 40 CFR 61.342(d)(2) of the
BWON rule.  We are specifically requesting comment on the merits of this
deletion and whether any commenter knows of any facility that has
applied the option in the past or under what circumstances a facility
might have chosen to use it in the future.

2.3.  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.  Applicability4.  Applicablity of Subpart A to Subpart CC

	In addition, we request comments on possible inconsistencies or errors
in Table 11 of the Appendix6 to subpart CC of 40 CFR part 63.  The
Appendix to subpart CCwhich addresses the application of the 40 CFR part
63 General Provisionsgeneral 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.the existing rule.  We may
include a revised table in the final amendments to clarify and correct
various entries in the existing table if needed.  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 

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 towould not occur during the first 3 years that
the standards are in effect.  Therefore, we have not prepared an
information collection request for the proposed amendments.  The OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.  A separate
notice seeking public comment on thesehas previously approved the
information collection requirements will be published in the Federal
Register.in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0340, EPA ICR number 

	The proposed amendments to the BWON do not impose any new information
collection burden.  These proposed amendments are clarifications of
existing requirements for determining the benzene content of wastewater
streams and other rule procedures.  We estimate that implementation of
these amendments, as proposed, will result in a slight cost savings for
the industries subject to the NESHAP requirements.  Therefore, we have
not prepared an ICR for the proposed amendments to subpart FF.  The OMB
has previously approved the information collection requirements contain
in 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control
number 2060-0183, EPA ICR number 1541.06.

	A copy of the OMB-approved ICR for the National Emission Standards for
Benzene Waste Operations may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection
Strategies Division (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at   HYPERLINK
"mailto:auby.susan@epa.gov"  auby.susan@epa.gov , or by calling (202)
566-1672. 

	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, including crude oil or bona fide feedstocks for NAICS code
32411)0; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.

	After considering the economic impacts of this proposed 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 amendmentsone option 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 $41.0 million per year due to
reductions in product losses.  Only one affected small firm would two
heavy oil refineries would incur net costs as a result of the proposed
amendments; all other small or large firms owning affected refineries
would have net savings.  None of the two refineries with net costs is
owned by a small parent entity.  Net costs for the affected small
firmrefinery entities are well below 0.01 percent of itstheir revenue;
therefore, no adverse economic impacts are expected for any small or
large entity.  Thus, the costs associated with the proposal would not
result in any “significant” adverse economic impact for any small or
large 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 1one 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.  TheTherefore, 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” isare 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 demonstrationdo not impose any
requirements.  They do not modify existing responsibilities or create
new responsibilities among EPA Regional offices, States, or local
enforcement agencies. on State and local governments.  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
governmentsofficials, 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 96, 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
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

	The proposed rule isamendments are 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.  This conclusion is based on our
assessment of the information on the effects on human health and
exposures associated with petroleum refinery operations.

	The public is invited to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies and
data, of which the agency may not be aware, that assess results of early
like exposure to organic HAP emissions from petroleum refineries.

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 resultonly a slight increase in
overall savings due to product recovery. energy requirements would
occur. 

I.  National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

	Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) 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.  The 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 decidesdoes not 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 enhanced biodegradation units (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
mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (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 61

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

40 CFR Part 63

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

					

Dated:

					

Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator.	For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40,
chapter I, partparts 61 and 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations isare
proposed to be amended as follows:

Part 63-PART 61-[AMENDED]

	1.  The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart FF-[Amended]  

	2.  Section 61.341 is amended by revising the definitions of “Sour
water stripper” and “Waste stream” to read as follows: 

§61.341  Definitions.

*  *  *  *  *

	Sour water stripper means a unit that:

	(1)  Is designed and operated to remove ammonia or sulfur compounds
(usually hydrogen sulfide) from sour water streams;

(2)  Has the sour water streams transferred to the stripper through hard
piping or other enclosed system;

(3)  Meets the requirements in §§61.343 and 61.349 for any storage
tanks or feed tanks that contain the sour water prior to the stripper;
and

(4)  Is operated in such a manner that the offgases are sent to a sulfur
recovery unit, processing unit, incinerator, flare, or other combustion
device.

*  *  *  *  *

	Waste stream means the waste generated by a particular process unit,
product tank, or waste management unit. The characteristics of the waste
stream (e.g., flow rate, benzene concentration, water content) are
determined at the point of waste generation.  Examples of a waste stream
include process wastewater, product tank drawdown, sludge removed from
process units or waste management units, slop oil, sour water skimmings,
spent caustic, material collected in blowdown or knock out drums,
cooling tower blowdown, and landfill leachate.  The fact that a material
is sold or recycled to the process does not preclude it from being a
waste stream.

*  *  *  *  *

	3.  Section 61.342 is amended by:

a.  Revising the last sentence in paragraph (a)(3) and adding paragraph
(a)(5);

b.  Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(C);

c.  Removing and reserving paragraph (d); 

	d.  Revising paragraph (e) introductory text and paragraph (e)(1); and

(e)  Adding paragraph (i).

§61.342  Standards:  General.

	(a)  *  *  *

	(3)  *  *  *  If the facility is managing remediation waste generated
offsite, the benzene in this waste shall be included in the calculation
of total annual benzene quantity in facility waste, if the waste streams
have an annual average water content greater than 10 percent, or if they
are mixed with water or other wastes at any time and the mixture has an
annual average water content greater than 10 percent, and if the
remediation waste was generated by a chemical manufacturing plant, coke
by-product recovery plant, or petroleum refinery.

*  *  *  *  *

(5)  The benzene in a waste received from offsite is included in the
calculation of the total annual benzene quantity if the waste was
generated by a chemical manufacturing plant, coke by-product recovery
plant, or petroleum refinery, and the waste has an annual average water
content greater than 10 percent, or if it is mixed with water or other
wastes at any time and the mixture has an annual average water content
greater than 10 percent.

*  *  *  *  *

	(c)  *  *  *

	(3)  *  *  *

	(ii)  *  *  *

	(C)   The total annual benzene quantity in a waste stream chosen for
exemption, including process unit turnaround waste and wastes from
startup, shutdown, and malfunction events (e.g., spills), is determined
for the year in which the waste is generated.

	(d)  [Reserved]

	(e)  As an alternative to the requirements specified in paragraph (c)
of this section, an owner or operator of a facility at which the total
annual benzene quantity from facility waste is equal to or greater than
10 Mg/yr (11 ton/yr) as determined in paragraph (a) of this section may
elect to manage and treat the facility waste as follows:

(1)  The owner or operator shall manage and treat facility waste with a
flow-weighted annual average water content of less than 10 percent in
accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this
section; and  

*  *  *  *  *

	(i)  The owner or operator of an existing source shall comply with
amendments to the requirements of this subpart that are effective as of
the date of publication of the final amendments in the Federal Register
no later than 3 years after the effective date.

	4.  Section 61.345 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(i) to read
as follows:

§61.345  Standards:  Containers.

	(a)  *  *  *

	(1)  *  *  *

	(i)  The cover and all openings (e.g., bungs, hatches, and sampling
ports) shall be designed to operate with no detectable emissions as
indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppmv above
background, initially and thereafter at least once per year by the
methods specified in §61.355(h) of this subpart.  The requirements in
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section do not apply to vacuum trucks.

*  *  *  *  *

	5.  Section 61.348 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) and
removing and reserving paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:

§61.348  Standards:  treatment processes.

	 (b)   *  *  *   

(2)   *  *  *  

(ii)  *  *  *

(B)   *  *  *  An enhanced biodegradation unit typically operates at a
food-to-microorganism ratio in the range of 0.05 to 1.0 kg of biological
oxygen demand per kg of biomass per day, a mixed liquor suspended solids
concentration in the range of 1 to 8 grams per liter (0.008 to 0.7
pounds per liter), and a residence time in the range of 3 to 36 hours.

*  *  *  *  *

	6.  Section 61.354 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) introductory
text and (d) to read as follows:

§61.354  Monitoring of operations.

*  *  *  *  *

	(b)  If an owner or operator complies with the requirements of
§61.348(b) or  §61.342(e), then the owner or operator shall monitor
each wastewater treatment system to ensure the unit is properly operated
and maintained by the appropriate monitoring procedure as follows:

*  *  *  *  *

(d)  For a carbon adsorption system that does not regenerate the carbon
bed directly onsite in the control device (e.g., a carbon canister),
comply with the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this
section and either paragraph (d)(4) or (d)(5) of this section, as
applicable. 

 (1)  Determine the carbon replacement interval from either design
calculations or historical data from actual operating experience. 

(2)  For the purpose of implementing paragraphs (d)(4) and (5) of this
section, breakthrough occurs when a concentration equal to or greater
than 50 ppmw organic compounds or 5 ppmw benzene is detected at the
outlet of the carbon canister, or for dual canisters operated in series,
at the outlet of the first canister.  

(3)  The carbon replacement required in paragraphs (d)(4) and (5) of
this section must be made within 8 hours of the detection of
breakthrough for canisters of 55 gallons or less and within 24 hours of
the detection of a breakthrough for canisters greater than 55 gallons.

(4)  Except as provided in paragraph (d)(5) of this section, monitor
either the concentration level of the organic compounds or the
concentration level of benzene in the exhaust vent stream from the
carbon adsorption system at intervals on a daily basis or at intervals
no greater than 20 percent of the carbon replacement interval, whichever
is greater, up to 80 percent of the carbon replacement interval. 
Replace the carbon in the carbon adsorption system with fresh carbon if
breakthrough is detected.  At 80 percent of the carbon replacement
interval, either:

(i)  Replace the carbon in the carbon adsorption system with fresh
carbon; or 

(ii)  Monitor either the concentration level of the organic compounds or
the concentration level of benzene in the exhaust vent stream from the
carbon adsorption system on a daily basis or at intervals no greater
than 10 percent of the carbon replacement interval, whichever is more
frequent, and replace the carbon in the carbon adsorption system with
fresh carbon when carbon breakthrough is indicated.  

(5)  For a carbon adsorption system that employs two carbon canisters in
series, an owner or operator may elect to meet the requirements in
paragraphs (d)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.

	(i)  Monitor either the concentration level of the organic compounds or
the concentration level of benzene in the exhaust vent stream from the
first canister in the series but before the second canister on a monthly
basis or at intervals no greater than 20 percent of the carbon
replacement interval for a single canister system, whichever is more
frequent.  If the owner or operator chooses to monitor a canister system
for benzene and detects between 1 ppm and 5 ppm benzene between the
primary and secondary canisters, then monitor for breakthrough (at 5 ppm
benzene) between the primary and secondary carbon canisters weekly or at
intervals no greater than 20 percent of the carbon replacement interval
for a single canister system, whichever is more frequent. 

(ii)  Replace the original primary carbon canister (or route the flow to
an appropriate alternative control device) when breakthrough is detected
between the primary and secondary canister.  The original secondary
carbon canister (or a fresh canister) will become the new primary carbon
canister and a fresh carbon canister will become the secondary canister.
 In lieu of replacing the primary canister within the specified time
frame, the owner or operator may elect to monitor the outlet of the
secondary canister beginning on the day the breakthrough between the
primary and secondary canister is identified and each calendar day
thereafter.  This daily monitoring shall continue until the primary
canister is replaced.  If the constituent being monitored (either
benzene or organic compounds) is detected at the outlet of the secondary
canister during this period of daily monitoring, both canisters must be
replaced within 8 hours of the detection of breakthrough.

*  *  *  *  *

7.  Section 61.355 is amended by:

a.  Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;

b.  Redesignating paragraphs (b)(5) through (7) as paragraphs (b)(6)
through (8); 

c.  Adding paragraph (b)(5);

d.  Revising paragraph (c)(1)(i) introductory text, adding paragraph
(c)(1)(i)(E), and revising paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) and (c)(3)(i);

e.  Revising paragraph (j); and

f.  Revising paragraphs (k) introductory text, (k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3),
and (k)(4) introductory text and removing paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (ii).


§61.355  Test methods, procedures, and compliance provisions.

*  *  *  *  *

(b)  For purposes of the calculation required by paragraph (a) of this
section, an owner or operator shall determine the annual waste quantity
at the point of waste generation, unless otherwise provided in
paragraphs (b)(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of this section, by one of the
methods given in paragraphs (b)(6) through (8) of this section.

*  *  *  *  *

 (5)  The determination of annual waste quantity may be made at the
point where multiple waste streams are combined at a common collection
point provided that all of the following conditions are met:

(i)  The facility has a total annual benzene quantity of 10 Mg/yr or
more.

(ii)  All waste management units that manage the waste streams prior to
the common collection point comply with the standards in §61.343
through §61.347 of this subpart.

(iii)  Waste streams shall be hardpiped to waste management units or
discharged into individual drain systems that are equipped with flexible
shields or other devices that enclose the space between the pipe
discharging the waste to the drain receiving the waste.  For individual
drain systems equipped with water seals, the owner or operator may also
extend the pipe discharging the waste below the liquid surface in the
water seal of the receiving drain.

(iv)  The common collection point shall be prior to any treatment to
that removes benzene and prior to exposure to the atmosphere.

(v)  The owner or operator identifies each waste stream and its point of
waste generation in the annual report required by §61.357(d)(2) of this
subpart.

*  *  *  *  *

	(c)  *  *  *

	(1)  *  *  *

	(i)  The determination shall be made at the point of waste generation
except for the specific cases given in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) through
(E) of this section.

*  *  *  *  *

 (E)  The determination of flow-weighted annual average benzene
concentration may be made at the point where multiple waste streams are
combined at a common collection point provided that all of the following
conditions are met:

(1)  The facility has a total annual benzene quantity of 10 Mg/yr or
more.

(2)  All waste management units that manage the waste streams prior to
the common collection point comply with the standards in §61.343
through §61.347 of this subpart.

(3)  Waste streams shall be hardpiped to waste management units or
discharged into individual drain systems that are equipped with flexible
shields or other devices that enclose the space between the pipe
discharging the waste to the drain receiving the waste.  For individual
drain systems equipped with water seals, the owner or operator may also
extend the pipe discharging the waste below the liquid surface in the
water seal of the receiving drain.

(4)  The common collection point shall be prior to any treatment to that
removes benzene and prior to exposure to the atmosphere.

(5)  The owner or operator identifies each waste stream and its point of
waste generation in the annual report required by §61.357(d)(2) of this
subpart.

*  *  *  *  *

 (iv)  The determination shall be made prior to any treatment of the
waste that removes benzene, except as specified in paragraphs
(c)(1)(i)(A) through (E) of this section.

*  *  *  *  *

	(3)  *  *  *

	(i)  Collect a minimum of three representative samples from each waste
stream. Where feasible, samples shall be taken from an enclosed pipe
prior to the waste being exposed to the atmosphere.  A representative
sample must be taken when the process generating the waste stream and
all equipment handling the waste stream are operating normally as
determined by all monitored process parameters, such a process flow
rates, temperatures, pressures, etc.  For wastes generated in batches by
a cyclic process or a process that operates intermittently, the three
samples of the waste stream must be taken from three different batches
of waste or from three different intermittent process cycles.

*  *  *  *  *

	(j)  An owner or operator shall determine the benzene quantity for the
purposes of the calculation required by §61.342(c)(3)(ii)(B) by the
following procedure:

(1)  For each waste stream that is not controlled for air emissions in
accordance with §§61.343, 61.344, 61.345, 61.346, or 61.347, as
applicable to the waste management unit that manages or treats the
waste, the benzene quantity shall be determined as specified in
paragraph (a) of this section except as provided in paragraphs (j)(1)(i)
through (iii) of this section.

(i)  Paragraph (b)(4) of this section shall not apply, i.e., the waste
quantity for process unit turnaround waste is not annualized but shall
be included in the determination of benzene quantity for the year in
which the waste is generated for the purposes of the calculation
required by §61.342(c)(3)(ii)(B).

(ii)  Paragraphs (b)(6) through (8) of this section shall not apply. 
Determine the annual waste quantity for each waste stream based on the
actual amount of each waste stream generated for each calendar year,
including wastes from spills and other startup, shutdown, and
malfunction events, for the purposes of the calculation required by
§61.342(c)(3)(ii)(B).

(iii)  The procedures in paragraph (a) of this section shall also apply
to wastes with a water content of 10 percent or less if they have a
flow-weighted annual average benzene concentration of 10 ppmw or more.

(2)  For each waste stream that is controlled for air emissions in
accordance with§§61.343, 61.344, 61.345, 61.346, or 61.347, as
applicable to the waste management unit that manages or treats the
waste, the determination of annual waste quantity and flow-weighted
annual average benzene concentration shall be made at either the point
of waste generation or at the point where the waste stream enters the
first waste management unit not complying with §§61.343, 61.344,
61.345, 61.346, and 61.347, and prior to any reduction of benzene
concentration through volatilization of the benzene, using the methods
given in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.

 (i)  Annual waste quantity shall be determined for each waste stream
based on the actual amount of each waste stream generated for each
calendar year.

(ii)  The flow-weighted annual average benzene concentration shall be
determined using the procedures in paragraphs (c)(2) or (3) of this
section.

(3)  The benzene quantity in a waste stream that is generated less than
one time per year, including process unit turnaround waste and waste
from startup, shutdown and malfunction events (e.g., spills), shall be
included in the determination of benzene quantity as determined in
paragraph (j)(5) of this section for the year in which the waste is
generated. The benzene quantity in this waste stream shall not be
annualized or averaged over the time interval between the activities
that resulted in generation of the waste for purposes of determining
benzene quantity as determined in paragraph (j)(5) of this section.

(4)  The benzene quantity for each waste stream in paragraph (j)(2) of
this section shall be determined by multiplying the annual waste
quantity of each waste stream times its flow-weighted annual average
benzene concentration.

(5)  The total benzene quantity for the purposes of the calculation
required by §61.342(c)(3)(ii)(B) shall be determined by adding together
the benzene quantities determined in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(4) of
this section for each applicable waste stream.

	(k)  An owner or operator shall determine the benzene quantity for the
purposes of the calculation required by §61.342(e)(2) by the following
procedure:

(1)  For each waste stream that is not controlled for air emissions in
accordance with §§61.343, 61.344, 61.345, 61.346, or 61.347, as
applicable to the waste management unit that manages or treats the
waste, the benzene quantity shall be determined as specified in
paragraph (a) of this section except as provided in paragraph (k)(1)(i)
and (ii) of this section.

(i)  Paragraph (b)(4) of this section shall not apply, i.e., the waste
quantity for process unit turnaround waste is not annualized but shall
be included in the determination of benzene quantity for the year in
which the waste is generated for the purposes of the calculation
required by §61.342(e)(2).

(ii)  Paragraphs (b)(6) through (8) of this section shall not apply. 
Determine the annual waste quantity for each waste stream based on the
actual amount of each waste stream generated for each calendar year,
including wastes from spills and other startup, shutdown, and
malfunction events, for the purposes of the calculation required by
§61.342(e)(2).

(2)  For each waste stream that is controlled for air emissions in
accordance with §§61.343, 61.344, 61.345, 61.346, or 61.347, as
applicable to the waste management unit that manages or treats the
waste, the determination of annual waste quantity and flow-weighted
annual average benzene concentration shall be made at the first
applicable location as described in paragraphs (k)(2)(i), (k)(2)(ii),
and (k)(2)(iii) of this section and prior to any reduction of benzene
concentration through volatilization of the benzene, using the methods
given in (k)(2)(iv) and (k)(2)(v) of this section.

(i)  Where the waste stream enters the first waste management unit not
complying with §§61.343, 61.344, 61.345, 61.346, or 61.347, that are
applicable to the waste management unit,

(ii)  For each waste stream that is managed or treated only in
compliance with §§61.343 through 61.347 up to the point of final
direct discharge from the facility, the determination of benzene
quantity shall be prior to any reduction of benzene concentration
through volatilization of the benzene, or

(iii)  For wastes managed in units controlled for air emissions in
accordance with §§61.343, 61.344, 61.345, 61.346, or 61.347, as
applicable to the waste management unit that manages or treats the
waste, and then transferred offsite, facilities shall use the first
applicable offsite location as described in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and
(k)(2)(ii) of this section if they have documentation from the offsite
facility of the benzene quantity at this location.  Facilities without
this documentation for offsite wastes shall use the benzene quantity
determined at the point where the transferred waste leaves the facility.

	(iv)   Annual waste quantity shall be determined for each waste stream
based on the actual amount of each waste stream generated for each
calendar year, and

	(v)  The flow-weighted annual average benzene concentration shall be
determined using the procedures in paragraphs (c)(2) or (3) of this
section.

	(3)  The benzene quantity in a waste stream that is generated less than
one time per year, including process unit turnaround waste and waste
from startup, shutdown, and malfunction events (such as spills), shall
be included in the determination of benzene quantity as determined in
paragraph (k)(6) of this section for the year in which the waste is
generated.  The benzene quantity in this waste stream shall not be
annualized or averaged over the time interval between the activities
that resulted in generation of the waste for purposes of determining
benzene quantity as determined in paragraph (k)(6) of this section.

	(4)  The benzene in waste entering an enhanced biodegradation unit, as
defined in §61.348(b)(2)(ii)(B), shall not be included in the
determination of benzene quantity, determined in paragraph (k)(6) of
this section, if the benzene concentration for each waste stream
entering the enhanced biodegradation unit is less than 10 ppmw on a
flow-weighted annual average basis.

*  *  *  *  *

§63.356  [Amended]

	8.  Section 61.356 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(b)(3).

	9.  Section 61.357 is amended by:

	a.  Revising paragraph (a)(4);

	b.  Revising paragraph (d)(2); and

	c.  Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(4). 

§61.357  Reporting requirements.

*  *  *  *  *

	(a)  *  *  *

(4)  The information required in paragraphs (a) (1), (2), and (3) of
this section should represent the waste stream characteristics based on
the configuration and operating conditions of the facility during the
operating year associated with the annual report.  An owner or operator
only needs to list in the report those waste streams that contact
materials containing benzene.  The report does not need to include a
description of the controls to be installed to comply with the standard
or other information required in §61.10(a).

*  *  *  *  *

	(d)  *  *  *

	(2)  Beginning on the date that the equipment necessary to comply with
these standards has been certified in accordance with paragraph (d)(1)
of this section, the owner or operator shall submit annually to the
Administrator a report that updates the information listed in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section.  If the information in the annual
report required by paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section is
not changed in the following year, the owner or operator may submit a
statement to that effect.  The owner or operator may elect to submit the
annual report on a calendar year basis.  Annual reports submitted on a
calendar year basis must be submitted by April 1 of the following year.

*  *  *  *  *

PART 63-[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[AMENDED-[Amended]

[Option 1 for §63.14] 

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

§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
§63.654(a)(1) and (b) of Subpart CC of this part.

*  *  *  *  *

[Option 2 for §63.14]

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

§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
§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, Washington, DC
20005 or at   HYPERLINK "http://www.standardmethods.org" 
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
§63.647(d)(5) of Subpart CC of this part.

	(ii)  Method 5210, “Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), dated 2001, IBR
approved for §63.647(d)(6) of Subpart CC of this part.

	(iii)  Method 5220, Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), dated 1997, IBR
approved for §63.647(d)(6) of Subpart CC of this part.

	(2)  [Reserved]

Subpart CC--[AMENDED-[Amended]

[Option 1 for §63.640]

	4.12.  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).

§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, 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, §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 the 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 Tab1e 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 §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 §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 §63.654(a) through (d).

[Option 2 for §63.640]

	5.12.  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).

§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, 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, §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
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 §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 §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 §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 §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 (paragraphs (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 §63.654(a) through (d).

	6.13.  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:

§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 §63.646; Option 1 would not revise §63.646]

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

§63.646  Storage vessel provisions.

*  *  *  *  *

	(c)  On and after the compliance date specified in §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 §63.119(c)(2)(ix) and (x). 
The following requirements do not apply to storage vessels at existing
sources subject to this subpart:  §§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 §63.640(h)(6), when complying
with the inspection requirements of §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 §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 §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 §63.647; Option 1 would not revise §63.647]

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

§63.647  Wastewater provisions.

*  *  *  *  *

 (d)  On and after the compliance date specified in §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 §40 CFR 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
§§40 CFR 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.

	(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:

              (Eq. 1)

Where:

BOD5 	= =	5-day biological oxygen demand or chemical oxygen

   	  demand of EBU influent wastewater (g/l = kg/m3);

Qin 	=	 Influent=	influent wastewater volumetric flow rate to the EBU 

           (m3/day);

[MLVSS]	=	 Concentration =	concentration of mixed liquor volatile
suspended 

	  solids (g/l = kg/m3); and

VEBU 	= Average=	average volume of wastewater in the EBU during normal

	  process operations (m3).

(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 §63.14); and  

	(6)  Measure the EBU influent biological oxygen demand (BOD5) using
Method 5210 (incorporated by reference-see §63.14) or the chemical
oxygen demand (COD) MLVSS using Method 5220 (incorporated by
reference-see §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.  

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

§63.650  Gasoline loading rack provisions.

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

*  *  *  *  *

	10.17.  Sections 63.654 and 63.655 are redesignated as §§63.655 and
63.656.

	11.18.  Revise existing references to §63.654 to §63.655.  These
references to §63.654 appear in §63.640(b)(2), (e)(2)(iii), (f)(5),
(k)(2)(ii), (k)(2)(iii), (l) introductory text, (l)(3)(i), (l)(3)(ii);
the definition of “continuous record” in §63.641; §63.642(k)(1)
and (l)(2); §63.644(b) introductory text, (c)(1), (d), and (e);
§63.645(h)(2); §63.646(j) and (k); §63.652(e)(5), (f)(3), and (l)(1);
§63.653(a)(7), (b), (c), (d) introductory text, (d)(2)(vii), and
(d)(2)(viii)(G); §63.654(i)(1)(ii); entries for §§63.6(b)(5),
63.7(a)(2), 63.7(g), 63.7(h)(3), 63.8(c)(1)(ii), 63.8(c)(4),
63.8(f)(4)(i), 63.8(g), 63.9(b)(1)(i), 63.9(b)(4), 63.9(b)(5), ,
63.10(d)(2), and 63.10(d)(5) of Table 6 to subpart CC; and Footnotes d,
f, and (g) of Table 10 to subpart CC.     

19.  Section 63.654 is added to read as follows.

[Option 1 for §63.654]     

	13.19.  Section 63.654 is added to read as follows:

§63.654  Cooling tower systems.

	(a)  On and after the compliance date specified in §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 §40 CFR 61.355(c)(3) of the National
Emission StandardStandards for Benzene Waste Operations.

	(ii)  Analyze each sample using EPA Method 8260B (incorporated by
reference—see §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).

	(i)  Conduct an initial analysis of the cooling water using EPA Method
8260B (incorporated by reference—see §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 §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/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 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 §40 CFR 61.355(c)(3) of the National
Emission StandardStandards for Benzene Waste Operations.

	(2)  Analyze each sample using EPA Method 8260B (incorporated by
reference—see §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:

 								(Eq. 1)

Where:,

L 		= Potential=	potential mass leak rate of HAP (lb/day);

0.012 	= Constant=	constant for unit conversion (lb/gallon × 

		  minutes/day × part per million parts); 

CHAP 		= Concentration=	concentration of individual or total organic HAP
in 

		  the cooling tower water prior to exposure to the air 

		 (ppmw); and 

QCT 		= Volumetric=	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 §63.14).

(iii)  The owner or operator shall recalculate the potential air
emissions from the coolingcooler 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;

	(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 §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 §63.654]

	14.19.  Section 63.654 is added to read as follows:

§63.654  Cooling tower systems.

	(a)  On and after the compliance date specified in §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/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 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 §40 CFR 61.355(c)(3) of the National
Emission StandardStandards for Benzene Waste Operations.

(2)  Analyze each sample using EPA Method 8260B (incorporated by
reference—see §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:

 								(Eq. 1)

Where:,

L 		= Potential=	potential mass leak rate of HAP (lb/day);

0.012	= Constant =	constant for unit conversion (lb/gallon × 					 
minutes/day × part per million parts); 

CHAP 		= Concentration=	concentration of individual or total organic HAP
in 			  the cooling tower water prior to exposure to the air 		  (ppmw);
and

QCT 		= Volumetric=	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 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 coolingcooler 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 (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 §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 §63.655]

	15.20.  Newly redesignated §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); 

c.  Redesignating existing paragraph (i)(4) as (i)(5); and

	d.  Adding paragraph (i)(4).

§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.

*  *  *  *  *

	(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 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.

*  *  *  *  *

	(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 §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 §63.655]

	16.20.  Newly redesignated §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.  Redesignating existing paragraph (i)(4) as (i)(5); and

	d.  Adding paragraph (i)(4).

§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 §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 guideslide pole has holes or other openings
or, for a new source, the 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 §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
delaydaily 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.

*  *  *  *  *

	17.  Table 11 of the appendix to subpart CC of part 63 is added as
follows:

Table 11--Applicability of NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart A) to Subpart CC

	Citation	

	Applies

 	to 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-Applicability

Replace term "source" and "stationary source" in

(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	





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)(iii)(C)	

Yes	





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 - Applicability and Dates

Subpart CC specifies the applicable test and demonstration procedures



63.7(a)(2)	

No	

Test results must be submitted in the notifi-cation 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	





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 - Applicability

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



 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.”

 For the reasons provided in the preamble to the proposed amendments to
the National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants
from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (71 FR
34426-34428, June 14, 2006), we believe that section 112(i) should
govern the compliance period.

 For an explanation of the corrections we accepted and the corrections
we did not accept, see the Summary of Comments on Emissions Data for the
Petroleum Refineries Advanced Notice of Public Rulemaking, which has
been placed in the docket.

  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.

 PAGE   

 PAGE   82 

 PAGE   

 PAGE   2 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum
Refineries-- and Benzene Waste Amendments – Proposed Amendments

Page   PAGE  83  of   NUMPAGES  129 

 PAGE   129 

