[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 208 (Friday, October 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26817]
[Federal Register: October 28, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-5099-3]
RIN 2060-AC19
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Categories: Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Other Processes Subject to
the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed compliance extension and proposed changes to subpart
H.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, the EPA is announcing a
3-month stay and reconsideration of certain portions of the ``National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Other Processes Subject to
the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks'' (collectively known as
the ``hazardous organic NESHAP'' or the ``HON''). The EPA is issuing
the stay pursuant to Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B), 42 U.S.C.
7606(d)(7)(B), which provides the Administrator authority to stay the
effectiveness of a rule during reconsideration.
This action is a proposal to extend the compliance date for certain
compressors and for surge control vessels and bottoms receivers to
allow the time necessary for installation of controls. Changes are also
being proposed to the applicability of control requirements for surge
control vessels and bottoms receivers. This action also proposes a
temporary extension of the applicable compliance dates beyond the 3
months of the stay, but only as necessary to complete reconsideration
(including appropriate regulatory action) of the rule in question.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before November 28,
1994, unless a hearing is requested by November 7, 1994. If a hearing
is requested, written comments must be received by December 12, 1994.
Public Hearing. Anyone requesting a public hearing must contact the
EPA no later than November 7, 1994. If a hearing is held, it will take
place on November 14, 1994, beginning at 10:00 a.m.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102),
Attention Docket Number A-90-20 (see docket section below), room M-
1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, D.C. 20460. The EPA requests that a separate copy also be
sent to the contact person listed below.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the
EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. Persons interested in attending the hearing or wishing
to present oral testimony should notify Mrs. Kim Teal, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,
telephone (919) 541-5580.
Docket. Dockets No. A-90-20 and A-89-10, containing the supporting
information for the original NESHAP and this action, are available for
public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, Waterside Mall, room M-1500, first floor, 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-7548 or 260-7549. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Janet S. Meyer, Emission Standards
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5254.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 22, 1994 (59 FR 19402), and June 6, 1994 (59 FR 29196),
the EPA promulgated in the Federal Register national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (``NESHAP'') for the synthetic organic
chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI), and for several other
processes subject to the equipment leaks portion of the rule. These
regulations were promulgated as subparts F, G, H, and I in 40 CFR part
63, and are commonly referred to as the hazardous organic NESHAP, or
the HON. The final rule required existing sources to comply with
subpart H beginning October 24, 1994 for some groups of SOCMI processes
and for processes subject to subpart I. These compliance dates were the
same as the proposed compliance dates and were consistent with the
agreement on the negotiated rule for equipment leaks. The final rule
required existing sources to comply with subpart G no later than April
22, 1997.
Public comments on the proposed rule included a substantial number
of requests for a compliance schedule for subpart H similar to the 3-
year schedule provided under subpart G. Several commenters argued that
the 6-to-18-month compliance period in proposed subpart H did not take
into consideration the implementation problems that could arise during
installation of required equipment. A few commenters thought that
proposed subpart H did not permit applications for compliance
extensions. The EPA did not revise the compliance schedule as requested
because the commenters did not provide any information that would
justify establishing a source-category-wide compliance schedule similar
to that provided in subpart G. Due to the lack of detailed information
on equipment changes and installation schedules, the EPA thought that
case-by-case compliance extensions would be sufficient to address any
implementation problems that might arise. In issuing the final rule,
the EPA added a provision, Sec. 63.182(a)(6), to clarify that
individual extensions of compliance may be requested for installation
of equipment required by subpart H.
The second major area of public comment concerned the proposed
definition of product accumulator vessel and its overlap with the
definitions for process vents and storage vessels. Major concerns
expressed included: (1) The proposed definition did not distinguish
between product accumulator vessels and process vents, storage vessels
or other in-process vessels; (2) multiple standards (process vents
under subpart G and equipment leaks under subpart H) would apply to the
same vent; and (3) product accumulator vessels, which are point
sources, would be regulated under provisions that were intended for
fugitive emissions (i.e., equipment leaks). These commenters suggested
eliminating the inconsistencies by: (1) Deleting the subpart H
requirements for product accumulator vessels and regulating them as
process vents or storage vessels under subpart G; or (2) allowing
sources to select whether to comply with the requirements of subpart G
or subpart H. Several commenters representing the non-SOCMI processes
subject to subpart H also suggested deleting requirements for product
accumulator vessels for those processes from subpart H. A few of these
commenters thought that the EPA had added these provisions to the
negotiated rule after the conclusion of the negotiations. The
commenters preferred regulating such vessels under future MACT
standards for the appropriate source category.
As described in the April 22, 1994 Federal Register (59 FR 19440),
the EPA concluded that, of the equipment included in the definition of
``product accumulator vessels,'' only surge control vessels and bottoms
receivers were outside the scope of process vents, storage vessels, and
wastewater. Therefore, the term ``product accumulator vessel'' was
removed from subpart H, and replaced with ``surge control vessels and
bottoms receivers.'' This change was intended to clarify the
applicability of the rules and was not a change in the substance or
effect of the negotiated rule.
Since the final rule was issued, it has become apparent that
compliance with the provisions of Sec. 63.164 and Sec. 63.170 involves
more equipment modifications and changes than originally believed.
Additionally, the EPA has determined that an administrative process
needs to be added to subparts F and I to establish these case-by-case
compliance extensions. A petition for reconsideration has been
submitted to the EPA requesting reconsideration of the compliance dates
for compressors, Sec. 63.164, and for surge control vessels and bottoms
receivers, Sec. 63.170.
II. Summary of and Rationale for Proposed Revisions
The purpose of this proposal is to revise the compliance dates for
compressors and for surge control vessels and bottoms receivers to
provide sufficient time to make the equipment changes necessary for
compliance with the provisions of Sec. 63.164 and Sec. 63.170. It is
proposed to add new paragraphs Sec. 63.100 (k)(4) through (k)(7) and
Sec. 63.103(g) to subpart F to revise the compliance dates for existing
sources and to document the use of the compliance extensions. Similar
changes are also being proposed for subpart I, as new paragraphs
Sec. 63.190 (e)(3) through (e)(5). This action also proposes a revised
Sec. 63.170 to address issues that have arisen over technical
feasibility of these control provisions and confusion over the
distinction between surge control vessels, on the one hand, and process
vents or storage vessels, on the other hand. This action also proposes
to add paragraph (k)(8) to Sec. 63.100 and paragraph (h) to Sec. 63.103
providing a compliance extension for processes that plan to eliminate
the use of or production of HAP.
A. Surge Control Vessels and Bottoms Receivers
1. Compliance Schedule
Compliance with the provisions of Sec. 63.170 requires that the
surge control vessel or bottoms receiver be routed to the process or to
a control device. Since the rule was issued, the EPA has received
numerous inquiries regarding the feasibility of complying in the
specified compliance period given the nature of the process changes
required for either of the compliance options. Based on this
information and review of the rulemaking record, the EPA has concluded
that the nature of the equipment changes required is similar to the
changes required for compliance with the provisions for process vents,
storage vessels, etc. subject to subpart G. The scope of the equipment
changes is, thus, more complex than was originally envisioned when the
6-month compliance date was selected.
The new information that the EPA has received demonstrates that at
many facilities major equipment modifications or replacements are
necessary in order to comply with the standard. The process changes
involved include rerouting of a vent stream to a control device or to
the process; replacement of a surge control vessel operated at
atmospheric pressure with another that can be operated at a pressure
greater than atmospheric; replacement, removal or addition of other
equipment; and process redesign. Such process changes take more than a
few months to effect, especially considering planning, approval of
permits, and in some cases approval by the Food and Drug Administration
or other government entities. All these changes require the same degree
of engineering design and evaluation that the controls required for
process vents and storage vessels require. Furthermore, from the range
of situations reported, it appears that the need for additional time to
implement the required equipment changes is not limited to specific
processes or kinds of equipment.
In light of new information received since publication of the final
rule, the EPA has concluded that the compliance date for surge control
vessels and bottoms receivers should be the same as that for process
vents and other equipment subject to subpart G, i.e., April 22, 1997.
Due to the widespread need for the additional time to design, purchase,
install, and permit new equipment, the EPA proposes to revise the
compliance date to April 22, 1997 for all sources subject to the
provisions of Sec. 63.170. This proposed language is presented in
Sec. 63.100(k)(7) of subpart F and Sec. 63.190(e)(6) of subpart I.
2. Revisions to Sec. 63.170
In addition to the concern with the achievability of the compliance
dates, the EPA has received numerous inquiries regarding the definition
of surge control vessels and the distinction between surge control
vessels (and bottoms receivers) and storage vessels. The EPA has
concluded from these discussions that this confusion is partially
attributable to the fact that the present definition for surge control
vessel is too broad and implies that any vessel that is not a storage
vessel, e.g., knockout pot, is a surge control vessel. A revised
definition for ``surge control vessel'' is being proposed to clarify
that the term is limited to vessels that are within the process unit to
provide in-process storage, mixing or management of flow rates or
volumes to assist in production of a product.
Even with this revised definition, the EPA recognizes that
considerable overlap will remain between vessels used for storage of
materials, storage vessels, and equipment that meets the definition of
surge control vessels or bottoms receivers. This is expected because
the equipment is frequently indistinguishable in terms of structure,
size, materials of construction, and materials stored. In many cases,
these items of equipment may be distinguished only after reviewing
process diagrams to determine whether the chemicals in the vessel will
undergo further processing steps at the chemical manufacturing process
unit. The EPA is aware that in some cases surge control vessels and
other unit operations have been regulated as storage vessels although
the function of the particular vessels was not for storage of feed
materials or product. This classification probably occurred because the
equipment is physically indistinguishable from other containers used
for storage.
To minimize the confusion over appropriate categorization of
equipment, the EPA believes it would be most appropriate to apply the
same control criteria to surge control vessels and bottoms receivers
that are applied to storage vessels in subpart G. This approach should
provide a workable solution to the problem by eliminating the remaining
differences between the two categories of equipment and should avoid
creating unforeseen problems. An additional consideration in this
decision was that this approach would involve only minimal changes to
the present text of the rule. Given the length and complexity of the
HON as a whole, the EPA thinks such a change would be understood more
readily and with fewer implementation delays. If surge control vessels
and bottoms receivers were addressed in subpart G, substantial
redrafting would be required throughout subpart G. Therefore, the EPA
considered this alternative to have a greater potential for creating
more issues and confusion than if the problem were addressed in subpart
H.
The use of the storage vessel control criteria is also considered
appropriate for the following reasons. First, it would take
considerable time, perhaps as much as 1 to 2 years, to gather the
necessary information and establish separate control requirements for
surge control vessels and bottoms receivers. Second, information
presently available to the EPA indicates that surge control vessels and
bottoms receivers have been regulated as storage vessels in a number of
cases. Third, the range of physical characteristics and operating
conditions of surge control vessels and bottoms receivers appears to
substantially overlap that of storage vessels. Although the EPA does
not have quantitative data on the characteristics and controls of surge
control vessels and bottoms receivers, EPA considers the storage vessel
information to provide the best available data on the characteristics
of surge control vessels and bottoms receivers. Therefore, the EPA
believes the MACT floor analysis and selection of the standard analysis
for storage vessels are adequate for surge control vessels and bottoms
receivers.
B. Compressors
The provisions of Sec. 63.164 require the use of mechanical seals
equipped with a barrier-seal system and controlled degassing of the
barrier fluid or enclosure of the compressor seal area and venting of
emissions through a closed-vent system to a control device. The
standard also allows designation of a compressor as being subject to a
500 ppm performance standard. These provisions are consistent with the
provisions in existing equipment leak standards in 40 CFR parts 60 and
61. Because no public comments were received that identified categories
of compressors or types of changes that justified compliance times
longer than the 6 to 18 months provided in the proposed rule, the EPA
concluded that case-by-case extensions would be sufficient to address
any implementation problems that might arise.
Since the final rule was issued, the EPA has received new
information that indicates it is infeasible for some sources subject to
the October 24, 1994 compliance date to comply with the compressor
provisions in the allotted 6-month compliance period. In the
development of the equipment leak rule, the EPA treated control of
compressors as requiring similar lead times and control measures as
those required for control of pumps. It has since been determined that
significant differences exist in the time required to make the
necessary equipment changes for compressors. In particular for some
compressors, compliance with the provisions of Sec. 63.164 requires
replacement of an existing mechanical seal system or identification of
an alternative barrier fluid system. Because compressors are
individually designed for each process and for the expected range of
operating conditions (pressure, temperature, chemicals in the process,
etc.), selection of replacement seal or barrier fluid systems requires
case-by-case engineering evaluation and equipment specification.
Replacement of a seal system or barrier fluid system for a compressor
could involve significant capital outlay and always requires careful
planning and evaluation to ensure continued proper operation of the
compressor. For projects of this nature, the time required to conduct
and complete such an assessment, write equipment specifications, bid
and purchase the equipment is roughly 1 year. Actual installation of
the replacement seal or barrier fluid system reportedly can be
completed within 1 week. Thus, the EPA believes that 1 year is the
minimum feasible period for installation of required equipment.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to revise the compliance date for
compressors at process units subject to the October 24, 1994 and
January 23, 1995 compliance dates to April 24, 1995. The proposed
language is presented in new paragraph Sec. 63.100(k)(4) in subpart F
and Sec. 63.190(e)(3) in subpart I.
The EPA has also determined that provisions need to be added to
subparts F and I to provide a mechanism for owners or operators to
request case-by-case compliance extensions for delays due to
unavailability of parts. Since replacement seal systems and barrier
fluid systems are designed for the compressor and the unit, it is
possible that the vendor company may not be able to provide the
replacement system on schedule and there would be no other vendor who
could quickly provide the parts. When the EPA established the
compliance date for the compressor provisions, the possible need for
such a compliance extension was not recognized. Therefore, the EPA is
proposing to allow application for a compliance extension in cases
where replacement of the seal system or barrier fluid system is
required and additional time is necessary due to unavailability of
parts. The proposed language is presented in new paragraph
Sec. 63.100(k)(5) to subpart F and paragraph Sec. 63.190(e)(4) to
subpart I. The EPA expects that this compliance extension provision
will be used only in those rare cases where, despite proper planning
and scheduling by the owner or operator, the replacement seal or
barrier fluid system is not available on time. The EPA expects that
with the proposed revisions to the compliance date the vast majority of
compressors will not need compliance extensions.
In reevaluating the compliance period provided in the rule for
compressors, the EPA also reconsidered whether it was appropriate to
allow compliance extensions in cases where a process unit shutdown is
necessary to permit installation of the replacement seal system or
barrier fluid system. Typically, in a shutdown of a process unit with a
compressor, the entire system is depressurized and the equipment is
cleared of process fluids. Even with good air pollution control
practices, such a process unit shutdown could involve substantially
more emissions than if the compressor were allowed to operate with
seals that do not meet the technical specifications of the standard.
Whether delaying installation of replacement seals or barrier fluid
systems is environmentally beneficial depends on the particular
circumstances of each case as well as the length of the delay.
Therefore, after evaluating the tradeoffs, the EPA concluded that
compliance extensions until the next scheduled process unit shutdown
should be allowed in certain circumstances. The EPA also judged that,
based on estimates of the expected tradeoffs in emissions reduction,
all compressors should be in compliance with the requirements of
Sec. 63.164 no later than April 22, 1996. These proposed changes to the
compliance dates are presented in paragraph Sec. 63.100(k)(5) of
subpart F and Sec. 63.190(e)(5). The EPA wants to emphasize that these
proposed compliance extensions would be available only in cases where a
process unit shutdown is necessary to allow installation of a new seal
system or a new barrier fluid system or requires changes to the
existing barrier fluid system.
C. Proposed Sec. 63.100(k)(8)
The EPA is proposing to allow compliance extensions for processes
that plan to eliminate the use or production of HAP from their process.
Subpart I presently provides, in Sec. 63.190(e), additional time for
such process changes. The proposed new paragraph Sec. 63.100(k)(8)
would be added to subpart F to address an oversight in the drafting of
the final rule.
D. Proposed Compliance Extension
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, the EPA is announcing,
pursuant to Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B), reconsideration of the
equipment leak provisions of the HON dealing with compressors and with
surge control vessels and bottoms receivers (40 CFR 63.164, 63.170). In
that action the EPA is also announcing a 3-month partial stay of those
provisions during the reconsideration. However, the EPA may not be able
to complete reconsideration of, and any appropriate curative regulatory
action to, the rule within the 3-month period expressly provided by
Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B). If the EPA does not complete the
reconsideration and rulemaking in this timeframe, then it will be
necessary to temporarily extend the applicable compliance dates until
the EPA completes final rulemaking action upon reconsideration. By this
action the EPA proposes, pursuant to section 301(a)(1) of the Clean Air
Act, 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1), a temporary extension of the compliance
dates beyond the 3 months provided for Group I sources that had been
required to comply with subpart H by October 24, 1994, and for sources
required to comply as of January 23, 1995 or later, only as necessary
to complete reconsideration and revision of the rule in question. As
the EPA expects to be able to complete reconsideration of these
regulatory provisions expeditiously, the EPA does not believe this
temporary extension will, as a practical matter, affect the compliance
dates for sources in Groups III, IV, or V since completion of the
rulemaking is expected before April 24, 1995. If, following
consideration of public comment, the EPA takes final action to extend
these compliance dates, the dates would be extended until the effective
date of the EPA's final action following reconsideration of these
rules.
The EPA is proposing this temporary extension of the compliance
dates in order to complete reconsideration of the rule, as discussed
above. The EPA intends to complete its reconsideration of the rule and,
following the notice and comment procedures of section 307(d) of the
Clean Air Act, take appropriate action as expeditiously as practicable.
The EPA will seek to ensure that the affected parties are not unduly
prejudiced by the EPA's reconsideration.
III. Impacts
A. Surge Control Vessels and Bottoms Receivers
The proposed revisions to the compliance date and the control
requirements for surge control vessels and bottoms receivers will not
affect the estimated emissions reduction and control cost for the rule.
In the background analyses used to characterize emissions, emission
reductions, and control costs for this rule, the EPA treated surge
control vessels and bottoms receivers as either process vents or
storage vessels. This approach was taken due to the lack of sufficient
data to characterize surge control vessels and bottoms receivers and
the EPA's view that this equipment could be best characterized as a
storage vessel. Consequently, the proposed revisions to the compliance
date and the requirements of Sec. 63.170 have no effect on the emission
reductions or cost estimates.
B. Compressors
The proposed revisions to the compliance date for compressors
provisions are estimated to have a negligible effect on the emissions
reduction due to the equipment leak control requirements. Emissions
from compressors contribute only a small portion of the estimated
emissions from equipment leaks because there are very few compressors
located in SOCMI process units. Information from earlier EPA studies
also shows that the majority of compressors in SOCMI already meet most,
if not all, of the equipment specifications in Sec. 63.164. Moreover,
because of the nature of the equipment changes and the long lead time,
the EPA believes the proposed revisions will not result in delays of
installation of required controls. These proposed revisions to subpart
H are not expected to affect the estimated cost of compliance with the
rule.
IV. Administrative
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements of the previously
promulgated NESHAP were submitted to and approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). A copy of this Information Collection
Request (ICR) document (OMB control number 1414.02) may be obtained
from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch (PM-223Y); U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M Street, SW; Washington, DC 20460
or by calling (202) 260-2740.
Today's changes to the NESHAP would have a minor impact on the
information collection burden estimates made previously. The added
provisions provide a mechanism to request compliance extensions and are
not required reports. Therefore, the ICR has not been revised.
B. Executive Order 12866 Review
The HON rule promulgated on April 22, 1994 was considered
``significant'' under Executive Order 12866 and a regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) was prepared. The amendments proposed today would revise
compliance dates to provide the time necessary for installation of
controls and do not add any additional control requirements. The EPA
believes that these proposed amendments would have a negligible impact
on the results of the RIA and the change is considered to be within the
uncertainty of the analysis. For the reasons discussed in section III,
the impacts on emissions reduction are also believed to be negligible.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires the identification
of potentially adverse impacts of Federal regulations upon small
business entities. The Act specifically requires the completion of a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those instances where small business
impacts are possible. Because this rulemaking imposes no adverse
economic impacts, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been
prepared.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business entities.
Dated: October 24, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601.
Subpart F--National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air
Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry
2. Section 63.100 is amended by revising paragraph (k) introductory
text, revising the first sentence of paragraph (k)(3), and by adding
paragraphs (k)(4) through (k)(8) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.100 Applicability and designation of source.
* * * * *
(k) Except as provided in paragraphs (l) and (m) of this section,
sources subject to subparts F, G, or H of this part are required to
achieve compliance on or before the dates specified in paragraphs
(k)(1) through (k)(8) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) Existing sources shall be in compliance with subpart H of this
part no later than the dates specified in paragraphs (k)(3)(i) through
(k)(3)(v) of this section, except as provided for in paragraphs (k)(4)
through (k)(8) of this section. * * *
(4) Existing chemical manufacturing process units in Groups I and
II as identified in table 1 of this subpart shall be in compliance with
the requirements of Sec. 63.164 of subpart H no later than April 24,
1995 for any compressor meeting one or more of the criteria in
paragraphs (k)(4)(i) through (k)(4)(iii) of this section, if the work
can be accomplished without a process unit shutdown, as defined in
Sec. 63.161 in subpart H.
(i) The seal system will be replaced;
(ii) A barrier fluid system will be installed; or
(iii) A new barrier fluid will be utilized which requires changes
to the existing barrier fluid system.
(5) Existing chemical manufacturing process units shall be in
compliance with the requirements of Sec. 63.164 in subpart H no later
than 1 year after the applicable compliance date specified in paragraph
(k)(3) of this section, for any compressor meeting the criteria in
paragraphs (k)(5)(i) through (k)(5)(iv) of this section.
(i) The compressor meets one or more of the criteria specified in
paragraphs (k)(4) (i) through (iii) of this section;
(ii) The work can be accomplished without a process unit shutdown
as defined in Sec. 63.161 of subpart H;
(iii) The additional time is actually necessary due to the
unavailability of parts beyond the control of the owner or operator;
and
(iv) The owner or operator submits the request to the EPA Regional
Office at the addresses listed in Sec. 63.13 of subpart A of this part
no later than 45 days before the applicable compliance date in
paragraph (k)(3) of this section, but in no event earlier than [date 30
days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. The
request shall include the information specified in paragraphs
(k)(5)(iv)(A) through (k)(5)(iv)(E) of this section. Unless the EPA
Regional Office objects to the request within 30 days after receipt,
the request shall be deemed approved.
(A) The name and address of the owner or operator and the address
of the existing source if it differs from the address of the owner or
operator;
(B) The name, address, and telephone number of a contact person for
further information;
(C) An identification of the chemical manufacturing process unit,
and of the specific equipment for which additional compliance time is
required;
(D) The reason compliance can not reasonably be achieved by the
applicable date specified in paragraphs (k)(3)(i) through (k)(3)(v) of
this section; and
(E) The date by which the owner or operator expects to achieve
compliance.
(6) If compliance with the compressor provisions of Sec. 63.164 of
subpart H of this part can not reasonably be achieved without a process
unit shutdown, as defined in Sec. 63.161 of subpart H, the owner or
operator shall achieve compliance no later than April 22, 1996. The
owner or operator who elects to use this provision shall comply with
the requirements of Sec. 63.103(g) of this subpart.
(7) Existing sources shall be in compliance with the provisions of
Sec. 63.170 of subpart H no later than April 22, 1997.
(8) If an owner or operator of a chemical manufacturing process
unit subject to the provisions of subparts F, G, and H of this part
plans to implement pollution prevention measures to eliminate the use
or production of HAP listed in table 2 of this subpart by October 23,
1995, the provisions of subpart H do not apply regardless of the
compliance dates specified in paragraph (k)(3) of this section. The
owner or operator who elects to use this provision shall comply with
the requirements of Sec. 63.103(h) of this subpart.
* * * * *
3. Section 63.103 is amended by adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.103 General compliance, reporting, and recordkeeping
provisions.
* * * * *
(g) An owner or operator who elects to use the compliance extension
provisions of Sec. 63.100(k)(6) shall submit the compliance extension
request to the EPA Regional Office no later than 45 days before the
applicable compliance date in Sec. 63.100(k)(3), but in no event
earlier than [date 30 days after publication of final rule in the
Federal Register]. The request shall contain the information specified
in Sec. 63.100(k)(5)(iv) and the reason compliance can not reasonably
be achieved without a process unit shutdown, as defined in Sec. 63.161.
(h) An owner or operator who elects to use the compliance extension
provisions of Sec. 63.100(k)(8) shall submit to the EPA Regional Office
a brief description of the process change, identify the HAP eliminated,
and the expected date of cessation of operation of the current process.
The description shall be submitted no later than [date 30 days after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] or with the
Notice of Compliance Status as required in Sec. 63.182(c) of subpart H,
whichever is later.
Subpart H--National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Equipment Leaks
4. Section 63.161 is amended by revising the definition of surge
control vessel to read as follows:
Sec. 63.161 Definitions.
* * * * *
Surge control vessel means feed drums, recycle drums, and
intermediate vessels. Surge control vessels are used within a chemical
manufacturing process unit when in-process storage, mixing, or
management of flow rates or volumes is needed on a recurring or ongoing
basis to assist in production of a product.
* * * * *
5. Section 63.170 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.170 Standards: Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers.
Each surge control vessel or bottoms receiver that is not routed
back to the process and that meets the conditions specified in table 2
or table 3 of this subpart shall be equipped with a closed-vent system
that routes the organic vapors vented from the vessel or bottoms
receiver back to the process or to a control device that complies with
the requirements in Sec. 63.172 of this subpart, except as provided in
Sec. 63.162(b) of this subpart.
6. Subpart H is amended by adding tables 2 and 3 to read as
follows:
* * * * *
Table 2 to Subpart H.--Surge Control Vessels and Bottom Receivers at
Existing Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vapor
Pressurea
Vessel Capacity (cubic meters) (kilopascals)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
75 capacity < 151............................="">13
.1
151 capacity................................. 5.
2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aMaximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP at operating
temperature.
Table 3 to Subpart H.--Surge Control Vessels and Bottom Receivers at
Existing Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vapor
Pressurea
Vessel Capacity (cubic meters) (kilopascals)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38 capacity < 151............................="">13
.1
151 capacity................................. 0.
7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aMaximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP at operating
temperature.
Subpart I--National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Certain Processes Subject to the Negotiated
Regulation for Equipment Leaks
7. Section 63.190 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) and by
adding paragraph (e)(3) through (e)(6) to read as follows:
* * * * *
Sec. 63.190 Applicability and designation of source.
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) Existing sources shall comply no later than October 24, 1994,
except as provided in paragraphs (e)(3) through (e)(7) of this section
or unless an extension has been granted by the EPA Regional Office or
operating permit authority as provided in Sec. 63.6(i) of subpart A of
this part.
(3) Existing chemical manufacturing process units shall be in
compliance with the requirements of Sec. 63.164 of subpart H no later
than April 24, 1995 for any compressor meeting one or more of the
criteria in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (e)(3)(iii) of this section,
if the work can be accomplished without a process unit shutdown, as
defined in Sec. 63.161.
(i) The seal system will be replaced;
(ii) A barrier fluid system will be installed; or
(iii) A new barrier fluid will be utilized which requires changes
to the existing barrier fluid system.
(4) Existing chemical manufacturing process units shall be in
compliance with the requirements of Sec. 63.164 of subpart H no later
than January 23, 1996, for any compressor meeting the criteria in
paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (e)(4)(iv) of this section.
(i) The compressor meets one or more of the criteria specified in
paragraphs (e)(3) (i) through (iii) of this section;
(ii) The work can be accomplished without a process unit shutdown
as defined in Sec. 63.161;
(iii) The additional time is actually necessary due to the
unavailability of parts beyond the control of the owner or operator;
and
(iv) The owner or operator submits the request to the EPA Regional
Office at the addresses listed in Sec. 63.13 of subpart A of this part
no later than [date 30 days after publication of final rule in the
Federal Register]. The request shall include the information specified
in paragraphs (e)(4)(iv)(A) through (e)(4)(iv)(E) of this section.
Unless the EPA Regional Office objects to the request within 30 days
after receipt, the request shall be deemed approved.
(A) The name and address of the owner or operator and the address
of the existing source if it differs from the address of the owner or
operator;
(B) The name, address, and telephone number of a contact person for
further information;
(C) An identification of the chemical manufacturing process unit,
and of the specific equipment for which additional compliance time is
required;
(D) The reason compliance can not reasonably be achieved by April
24, 1995; and
(E) The date by which the owner or operator expects to achieve
compliance.
(5) If compliance with the compressor provisions of Sec. 63.164 of
subpart H of this part can not reasonably be achieved without a process
unit shutdown, as defined in Sec. 63.161 of subpart H, the owner or
operator shall achieve compliance no later than April 22, 1996. The
owner or operator who elects to use this provision shall comply with
the requirements of Sec. 63.192(g) of this subpart.
(6) Existing sources shall be in compliance with the provisions of
Sec. 63.170 of subpart H no later than April 22, 1997.
* * * * *
8. Section 63.192 is amended by adding a new paragraph (l) to read
as follows:
* * * * *
Sec. 63.192 Standard.
* * * * *
(l) An owner or operator who elects to use the compliance extension
provisions of Sec. 63.190(e)(5) shall submit the compliance extension
request to the EPA Regional Office no later than [date 30 days after
publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. The request shall
contain the information specified in Sec. 63.190(e)(4)(iv) and the
reason compliance can not reasonably be achieved without a process unit
shutdown, as defined in Sec. 63.161 of subpart H.
[FR Doc. 94-26817 Filed 10-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
