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

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 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 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