[Federal Register: April 10, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 68)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18071-18078]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10ap95-38]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-5182-6]
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 rule: clarification.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes clarifying changes and corrections to
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''). This action proposes to remove three compounds (glycerol tri-
(polyoxypropylene)ether, polyethylene [[Page 18072]] glycol, and
polypropylene glycol) from the list of chemical production processes
regulated by the HON. The production of these compounds is also
included in the source category ``Polyether Polyols Production'' and
will be regulated by that national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP). The EPA is also proposing several changes to the
equipment leak requirements to clarify the intent of certain
provisions, to correct oversights, and to simplify demonstration of
compliance with the regulation.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before May 10, 1995,
unless a hearing is requested by April 20, 1995. If a hearing is
requested, written comments must be received by May 25, 1995.
    Public Hearing. Anyone requesting a public hearing must contact the
EPA no later than April 20, 1995. If a hearing is held, it will take
place on April 25, 1995, beginning at 10 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 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 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. Since the rule was issued, the EPA has received inquiries regarding
certain portions of the rule and EPA has concluded that it is necessary
to clarify these provisions and to correct several oversights.

II. Removal of Polyols From Table 1 of Subpart F

    The list of SOCMI chemicals currently includes three compounds--
glycerol tri-(polyoxypropylene)ether, polyethylene glycol, and
polypropylene glycol--whose production emissions will be regulated by
the NESHAP for ``Polyether Polyols Production,'' a category of major
sources for which a maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
standard is scheduled to be promulgated by November 15, 1997. According
to documentation for the list of source categories, the definition of
``Polyether Polyols Production'' encompasses all commercially important
polyether polyols, and therefore would clearly include these three
chemical productions currently subject to the HON.
    The EPA believes that it would be more reasonable and efficient to
regulate emissions from production of all polyether polyols under only
one rule, rather than regulating some processes under one rule and
other polyol processes under a different rule. Specifically, the
production process for all polyether polyols is very similar, and
typical polyol facilities may manufacture both SOCMI and non-SOCMI
polyether polyols with the same equipment. Thus, EPA concluded that it
would be inappropriate to regulate polyols under the HON. Also, because
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from polyether polyol
production are relatively low, postponing regulation of polyether
polyols would not forestall large HAP emission reductions.
    Accordingly, the EPA proposes to remove these three chemicals from
the list of SOCMI chemicals, located in table 1 of subpart F of the
final rule, and to address these production processes under the
subsequent polyether polyols production rule.

II. Proposed Changes to Subpart H

A. Consolidation of Equipment Leak Programs

    Since 1981, EPA and States have issued a number of different
guidelines and regulations for controlling emissions from equipment
leaks. Some companies have reported that they have to comply with
anywhere from 5 to 11 different equipment leak programs at one plant
site. These programs principally differ in applicability criteria and
have minor differences in other details of the provisions. Because of
concerns regarding the cost of maintaining separate programs, the
Regulatory Negotiation Committee (Committee) that negotiated the
proposed rule upon which subpart H is based agreed that compliance with
the negotiated rule would also constitute compliance with any
overlapping applicable new source performance standards (NSPS) or
NESHAP (e.g., subpart VV of part 60 or subpart J of part 61).
Unfortunately, this provision (40 CFR Sec. 63.160(b)) does not allow
enough consolidation of programs to adequately address the problem.
Owners and operators of process units subject to the HON still must
maintain multiple programs because process units may have non-HAP
containing process equipment as well as HAP containing process
equipment. Consequently, a number of industry representatives and a
State agency have requested that EPA also allow owners and operators
the option of consolidating all the volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and HAP equipment leak programs into one program for each process unit.
The EPA agrees that consolidation of programs will allow for more
efficient management of programs, reduce cost of compliance, and
improve compliance. As EPA believes that the HON contains more
stringent requirements than any other Federal equipment leak
regulations, EPA proposes to allow override of those requirements with
the provisions of subpart H. It is proposed to add a new paragraph (c)
to Sec. 63.160 to allow an owner or operator to elect to comply with
subpart H for all VOC containing process equipment in the process unit
in lieu of compliance with 40 CFR part 60 subparts VV, GGG, or KKK or
with 40 CFR part 61 subparts F or J. The EPA also encourages States to
allow consolidation of State equipment leak programs under subpart H.
The EPA believes that establishing one program for a plant site or
process unit would reduce costs to States and local agencies for
permitting and enforcing rules as well as reduce the cost of
[[Page 18073]] compliance for owners or operators of sources.

B. Sampling Connection Systems

    Subpart H requires that each sampling connection system be equipped
with either a closed-loop or closed-vent system or that a closed-purge
system be used, and that the system either return the purge directly to
the process, collect and recycle the purge, or send the purge to a
control device. Following issuance of the final rule, several chemical
companies inquired whether the purge material could be sent to a
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) or a
controlled wastewater collection and treatment facility in lieu of
sending the purge to a control device as specified in Sec. 63.172.
Typically, the purge material could not be returned to the process due
to polymerization or other characteristics that severely limited the
utility of the material. The EPA agrees that this control option would
meet the intent of the sampling connection system provisions, which is
to ensure that purged material is captured and either returned to a
process or destroyed. Therefore, it is proposed to add provisions to
Sec. 63.166 to allow treatment of collected purge material at permitted
TSDF or solid waste facilities. The proposed provisions also allow use
of waste management units complying with Secs. 63.133-63.138 of subpart
G. The proposed Sec. 63.166 also includes minor clarifying edits to
paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) through (b)(3). Also, due to numerous
questions, EPA is proposing to add a definition for the term sampling
connection system.

C. Less Frequent Monitoring of Valves in Phase III

    Since the final rule was issued, EPA has received inquiries about
the feasibility of using data collected before April 22, 1994 and use
of data that differs slightly from the requirements of Sec. 63.180(b).
Although the preamble to the final rule (59 FR 19446) did state that
the rule was intended to allow owners or operators the flexibility to
initiate phase III of the valve standard at anytime, the revisions to
subpart H did not include an explicit statement that data collected
before April 22, 1994 could be used or that less frequent monitoring
within Phase III could begin. Some of the callers seemed to be
concerned that the requirements for monitoring data specified in
Sec. 63.180(b) precluded use of data collected before the rule was
final. Consequently, it is proposed to add paragraphs to Sec. 63.168
and Sec. 63.174 to specifically allow use of data collected before
April 22, 1994. It is also proposed to clarify that data collected
before April 22, 1994 may have minor deviations from the requirements
in Sec. 63.180(b)(1) through (b)(6). Examples of minor deviations from
the requirements of Sec. 63.180(b)(1) through (b)(6) are use of a
slightly different monitoring frequency or monitoring at a different
leak definition provided the data would still indicate the presence or
absence of a leak.

D. Flow Indicators

    In the HON, as well as in other section 111 and 112 standards, EPA
has required the use of flow indicators or car-seal systems to ensure
that emissions are continuously vented to an appropriate control device
[see Sec. 63.172(j)(1) for example]. The EPA has recently learned that,
as these provisions are presently drafted, it appears that either flow
must be measured or that specified equipment (i.e., car-seal systems or
lock and key-type valve configurations) must be used. The intent of
these provisions is to provide a means of indicating when emissions are
bypassing a control device. There was no intention in drafting these
provisions to limit the method used for detecting or monitoring for
potential by-passes of control devices. The EPA has concluded that
these provisions need to be clarified and the clearest way is to expand
the definition of flow indicator to include reference to devices that
do not measure flow and to remove the reference to presence of flow
from the by-pass monitoring requirement. The EPA is proposing to amend
subpart H to clarify this provision by adding a definition for ``flow
indicator'' and by revising paragraph (j)(1) of Sec. 63.172.

E. Safety Issues With Sec. 63.163 and Sec. 63.167

    Since the final rule was promulgated, EPA has learned of a few
situations where compliance with the provisions of the rule creates, or
has the potential to create, serious safety hazards for plant or
monitoring personnel. These concerns arise because no provisions
presently exist in some sections of subpart H to exempt unsafe
situations from specific equipment or monitoring requirements. The need
for these provisions was not raised in the Committee discussions or in
the public comments. The EPA believes that the concerns are being
raised now as the rule is being implemented because these safety issues
only arise in a few cases.
    Consequently, EPA is proposing to add unsafe-to-monitor provisions
for pumps and an exemption from the requirement to cap, or plug, open-
ended lines or valves for materials that represented a safety or
explosion hazard. The unsafe-to-monitor provision for pumps is
patterned after the unsafe-to-monitor valve provisions. Pumps that are
unsafe-to-monitor are pumps that are located in an area that presents
an imminent danger to personnel due to the presence of toxic materials,
explosive process conditions, or high pressure. This provision would
exempt pumps in unsafe locations from routine monitoring requirements,
but would require monitoring during safe-to-monitor periods.
    The EPA is also proposing to exempt open-ended lines or valves
containing materials that represented a safety or explosion hazard from
the requirement to equip the line with a cap or plug. The EPA has
recently learned that in a few processes the requirement to cap, or
plug, the line could result in trapping highly-reactive monomer in the
line. In these cases, the polymerization reaction will cause serious
overpressure and catastrophic equipment failure presenting a safety
hazard to plant personnel and creating the potential for greater
emissions to the atmosphere than if the line were left uncapped.

F. Inaccessible and Difficult-to-Monitor Agitators

    The Committee developed the requirements for agitators based on the
assumption that agitators were technologically similar to pumps. In the
Committee discussions, it was assumed that agitators would be just as
accessible as pumps. The EPA has recently learned that there are a few
facilities where agitators are inaccessible, and it simply is not
feasible to monitor this equipment. Consequently, it is proposed to add
an exemption for inaccessible agitators and to provide consideration
for difficult-to-monitor agitators. The proposed provisions in
Secs. 63.173(h) and (i) are patterned after the difficult-to-monitor
valve provisions and the inaccessible connector provision in
Sec. 63.174(h)(1)(iii). Because it is conceivable that there could also
be processes where agitators are located in areas that pose an imminent
danger to monitoring personnel, provisions to exempt unsafe-to-monitor
agitators are also proposed. Recordkeeping requirements for difficult-
to-monitor and unsafe-to-monitor equipment are included in the proposed
revisions to Sec. 63.181(b)(7).

G. Porcelain Connectors

    In development of the connector provisions, the Committee exempted
glass and glass-lined connectors from the monitoring requirements
because of [[Page 18074]] the limited potential for on-line repair. The
Committee was concerned that tightening of bolts on glass and glass-
lined connectors presented a high risk of breakage and potential for
significant accidental releases. Since the rule was issued, EPA has
learned that porcelain connectors are also used at some facilities.
Since porcelain connectors, as well as other forms of ceramic
materials, would also have a high risk of breakage during on-line
repairs, EPA is proposing to revise Sec. 63.174(h)(1) to use the more
generic terminology ``ceramic or ceramic-lined'' connector.

H. Pressure Test for Batch Process Equipment

    Two changes are being proposed to the pressure test provisions of
Sec. 63.180(f). The pressure test provisions for batch process
equipment were derived from general industry practice and EPA's
experience with testing of tank trucks and railcars for vapor
tightness. In development of these provisions, the Committee assumed
that this testing would be conducted on equipment operating at
pressures greater than atmospheric but less than 10 pounds per square
inch gauge (psig). The EPA has since learned that there are some batch
operations operating at essentially atmospheric pressure for which the
pressure/vacuum test provisions represent the only practical means of
complying with the standard. Unfortunately, the Committee agreed to
language on the test provisions that does not allow pressurization
beyond the operating pressure of the equipment. The EPA believes that
this is an unintentional limitation on the availability of the pressure
test option. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise Sec. 63.180(f)(1) to
allow pressurization to less than the set pressure of any pressure
relief device or to within safety limits of the operating equipment.
The EPA has also recently become aware that there are batch processes
operating at greater than 10 psig for which the owner or operator also
wishes to use the pressure/vacuum test provisions of the rule. In such
cases, the precision requirements for the pressure gauge
(<plus-minus>2.5 mm mercury in the range of the test pressure) could
mean no pressure gauge would be available or no gauge would be
available at a reasonable cost. To determine whether any revision to
these provisions would be appropriate, the EPA reviewed the basis for
the precision specification for the pressure gauge. It was found that
the precision specified in the rule was the result of the assumed range
of test pressures, an assumed test duration of 15 minutes, and a
relative accuracy of <plus-minus>10 percent. Based on these findings
EPA thinks that it would be appropriate to allow an alternative
procedure for cases where a pressure gauge with a precision of
<plus-minus>2.5 mm mercury in the range of the test pressure is not
reasonably available. The EPA proposes to allow the owner or operator
to use a pressure gauge with a precision of <plus-minus>10 percent of
the test pressure and to extend the duration of the test for the time
necessary to detect a pressure loss (or rise) that equals a rate of 1
psig/hr.

IV. Proposed Changes to Subpart I

A. Notification and Compliance Dates for Process Changes

    Presently, subpart I does not specify compliance dates for process
units or equipment affected by operational changes as is done in
Secs. 63.100(k) through (m) of subpart F. These subpart F provisions
specify the notification and approval requirements for each type of
change as well as the compliance date for equipment affected by the
change. These procedures were included in subpart F to allow HON
sources to follow the administrative procedures in subpart F, subpart
G, and, as appropriate, the administrative procedures of subpart A and
the operating permits rule until final action on the section 112(g)
rule resolves the question of whether individual MACT standard
administrative procedures supersede the administrative procedures of
the section 112(g) rule. These provisions were omitted from subpart I.
To correct this omission paragraphs (g)(3), (g)(4), and (h) are
proposed to be added to Sec. 63.190 to specify compliance dates for
operational changes that are expected to occur.

B. Definitions

    Definitions for ``process unit'' and ``source'' are proposed to be
added to Sec. 63.191 to correct an oversight. These definitions were
inadvertently omitted in drafting the final rule. The proposed
definition for ``process unit'' is derived from the original definition
agreed to by the Committee. The proposed definition for ``source'' is
based on the definition for ``source'' in subpart F.
    Due to several requests for clarification of the applicability of
subpart I to operations at pharmaceutical facilities, the EPA is also
proposing a revision to the definition of ``pharmaceutical production
process.'' The provisions of subpart I were intended to apply only to
those pharmaceutical production processes that synthesize a
pharmaceutical product. At facilities with solvent recovery
capabilities, waste solvent from the synthesis process is generally
recovered and purified in a step separate from the pharmaceutical
synthesis process. The provisions of subpart I were not intended to
cover such solvent recovery processes. Peripheral operations not
necessary for the production of the drug, such as formulation (the
physical mixing of one or more final products), tablet coating
(physically coating the final product), and solvent recovery
(repurifying the solvent after drug production and reintroducing the
pure solvent into raw solvent storage), are not considered part of the
pharmaceutical production process as defined in subpart I. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to add a phrase to the last sentence in the definition
to clarify that solvent recovery operations located at pharmaceutical
facilities are not subject to the provisions of Subpart I. This
definition for ``pharmaceutical production process'' in subpart I
should be viewed as being unique to subpart I and should not be viewed
as determining applicability in other standards.

C. Bench-Scale Batch Process Equipment

    It has recently come to EPA's attention that there are a few
pharmaceutical companies producing products in extremely small batches
using laboratory or small bench-scale equipment. The equipment in these
processes is very small (typically valves and connectors are less than
0.5 inches in diameter) and is closely-spaced. These small bench-scale
processes typically produce a kilogram or less of product per batch and
only a small number of batches are run each year. However, because the
components in these processes are generally in HAP service more than
300 hours per year, the processes would be subject to the provisions of
subparts I and H. The EPA is revising Sec. 63.190(f) of subpart I to
clarify that bench-scale batch processes are not subject to the
provisions of subpart I and H. A definition for ``bench-scale batch
process'' is also being added to Sec. 63.191 of subpart I. The EPA
thinks that this correction is necessary because the equipment cannot
reasonably be monitored and repaired routinely for any rational
benefit. The equipment in these processes is so tightly situated that
access by the monitor probe is essentially precluded and it is
difficult to determine the origin of a leak if one is detected.
Furthermore, due to the size of these units, emissions would be
insignificant due to the small number of components, the amount of time
the components are in HAP [[Page 18075]] service, and the small
quantities of materials processed.

V. 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 (2136); U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; 401 M Street, SW; Washington, DC 20460 or by calling
(202) 260-2740.
    Today's proposed changes to the NESHAP should have no impact on the
information collection burden estimates made previously. The changes
consist of new definitions, alternative test procedures, and
clarifications of requirements; not additional requirements.
Consequently, 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 issued today clarify the
rule and do not add any additional control requirements. The EPA
believes that these 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.

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

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

    Dated: March 28, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 subparts F, H and I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:
    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sections 101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq., as amended by Pub. L. 101-549, 104
Stat. 2399).

Subpart F--National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air
Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry

Table 1 of Subpart F--[Amended]

    2. Table 1 of subpart F is amended by removing the entries for
glycerol tri-(polyoxypropylene)ether, polyethylene glycol, and
polypropylene glycol and their associated CAS number and group number.

Subpart H--National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Equipment Leaks

    3. Section 63.160 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read
as follows:

Sec. 63.160  Applicability and designation of source.

* * * * *
    (c) If a process unit subject to the provisions of this subpart has
equipment to which this subpart does not apply, but which is subject to
a standard identified in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section,
the owner or operator may elect to apply this subpart to all such
equipment in the process unit. If the owner or operator elects this
method of compliance, all VOC in such equipment shall be considered,
for purposes of applicability and compliance with this subpart, as if
it were organic HAP. Compliance with the provisions of this subpart, in
the manner described in this paragraph, shall be deemed to constitute
compliance with the standard identified in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2)
of this section.
    (1) 40 CFR part 60 subpart VV, GGG, or KKK; or
    (2) 40 CFR part 61 subpart F or J.
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.161 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the
definitions ``flow indicator'' and ``sampling connection system'' to
read as follows:

Sec. 63.161  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Flow indicator means a device which indicates whether gas flow is,
or whether the valve position would allow gas flow to be present, in a
line.
* * * * *
    Sampling connection system means an assembly of equipment within a
process unit used during periods of representative operation to take
samples of the process fluid. Equipment used to take non-routine grab
samples is not considered a sampling connection system.
* * * * *
    5. Section 63.163 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as
follows:

Sec. 63.166  Standards: Pumps in light liquid service.

* * * * *
    (j) Any pump that is designated, as described in
Sec. 63.181(b)(7)(i) of this subpart, as an unsafe-to-monitor pump is
exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (b) through (e) of this
section if:
    (1) The owner or operator of the pump determines that the pump is
unsafe to monitor because monitoring personnel would be exposed to an
immediate danger as a consequence of complying with paragraphs (b)
through (d) of this section; and
    (2) The owner or operator of the pump has a written plan that
requires monitoring of the pump as frequently as practicable during
safe-to-monitor times, but not more frequently than the periodic
monitoring schedule otherwise applicable.
    6. Section 63.166 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
read as follows:

Sec. 63.166  Standards: Sampling connection systems.

    (a) Each sampling connection system shall be equipped with a
closed-purge, closed-loop, or closed-vent system, except as provided in
Sec. 63.162(b) of this subpart. Gases displaced during filling of the
sample container are not required to be collected or captured.
    (b) Each closed-purge, closed-loop, or closed-vent system as
required in paragraph (a) of this section shall:
    (1) Return the purged process fluid directly to the process line;
or
    (2) Collect and recycle the purged process fluid to a process;
    (3) Be designed and operated to capture and transport the purged
process fluid to a control device that complies with the requirements
of Sec. 63.172 of this subpart; or
    (4) Collect and transport the purged process fluid to a system or
facility identified in paragraph (b)(4)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this
section.
    (i) A waste management unit as defined in Sec. 63.111 of subpart G
of this part, if the waste management unit is subject to, and operated
in compliance with the provisions of subpart G of this part applicable
to group 1 wastewater streams. [[Page 18076]]
    (ii) A treatment, storage, or disposal facility subject to
regulation under 40 CFR part 264, 265, or 266; or
    (iii) A facility permitted, licensed, or registered by a State to
manage municipal or industrial solid waste, if the process fluids are
not hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR part 261.
* * * * *
    7. Section 63.167 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec. 63.167  Standards: Open-ended valves or lines.

* * * * *
    (e) Open-ended valves or lines containing materials which would
autocatalytically polymerize or, would prevent an explosion, serious
overpressure, or other safety hazard if capped or equipped with a
double block and bleed system as specified in paragraphs (a) through
(c) of this section are exempt from the requirements of paragraph (a)
through (c) of this section.
    8. Section 63.168 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(3) to
read as follows:

Sec. 63.168  Standards: Valves in gas/vapor service and in light liquid
service.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The use of monitoring data generated before April 22, 1994 to
qualify for less frequent monitoring is governed by the provisions of
Sec. 63.180(b)(6) of this subpart.
* * * * *
    9. Section 63.172 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (j)(1) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.172  Standards: Closed-vent systems and control devices.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (1) Install, set or adjust, maintain, and operate a flow indicator
that takes a reading at least once every 15 minutes. * * *
* * * * *
    10. Section 63.173 is amended by adding paragraphs (h), (i) and (j)
to read as follows:

Sec. 63.173  Standards: Agitators in gas/vapor service and in light
liquid service.

* * * * *
    (h) Any agitator that is difficult-to-monitor is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section if:
    (1) The owner or operator determines that the agitator cannot be
monitored without elevating the monitoring personnel more than 2 meters
above a support surface or it is not accessible at anytime in a safe
manner;
    (2) The process unit within which the agitator is located is an
existing source or the owner or operator designates less than 3 percent
of the total number of agitators in a new source as difficult-to-
monitor; and
    (3) The owner or operator follows a written plan that requires
monitoring of the agitator at least once per calendar year.
    (i) Any agitator that is obstructed by equipment or piping that
prevents access to the agitator by a monitor probe is exempt from the
monitoring requirements of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
    (j) Any agitator that is designated, as described in
Sec. 63.181(b)(7)(i) of this subpart, as an unsafe-to-monitor agitator
is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section if:
    (1) The owner or operator of the agitator determines that the
agitator is unsafe to monitor because monitoring personnel would be
exposed to an immediate danger as a consequence of complying with
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section; and
    (2) The owner or operator of the agitator has a written plan that
requires monitoring of the agitator as frequently as practicable during
safe-to-monitor times, but not more frequently than the periodic
monitoring schedule otherwise applicable.
    11. Section 63.174 is amended by adding a new paragraph (b)(4) and
by revising the first sentence of paragraph (h)(1) introductory text to
read as follows:

Sec. 63.174  Standards: Connectors in gas/vapor service and in light
liquid service.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) The use of monitoring data generated before April 22, 1994 to
qualify for less frequent monitoring is governed by the provisions of
Sec. 63.180(b)(6).
* * * * *
    (h)(1) Any connector that is inaccessible or is ceramic or ceramic-
lined (e.g., porcelain, glass, or glass-lined), is exempt from the
monitoring requirements of paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section and
from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Sec. 63.181 and
Sec. 63.182 of this subpart. * * *
* * * * *
    12. Section 63.180 is amended by redesignating paragraph (b)(2) as
(b)(2)(i) and revising the first sentence of newly designated paragraph
(b)(2)(i), by adding a paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by revising paragraph
(b)(4)(iii), by revising paragraph (b)(6) by revising paragraph (f)(1),
and by adding a sentence to paragraph (f)(4) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.180  Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2)(i) Except as provided for in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this
section, the detection instrument shall meet the performance criteria
of Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, except the instrument
response factor criteria in section 3.1.2(a) of Method 21 shall be for
the average composition of the process fluid not each individual VOC in
the stream. * * *
    (ii) If no instrument is available at the plant site that will meet
the performance criteria specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this
section, the instrument readings may be adjusted by multiplying by the
average response factor of the process fluid, calculated on an inert-
free basis as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section.
    (3) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iii) The instrument may be calibrated at a higher methane
concentration than the concentration specified for that piece of
equipment. The concentration of the calibration gas may exceed the
concentration specified as a leak by no more than 2,000 parts per
million. If the monitoring instrument's design allows for multiple
calibration scales, then the lower scale shall be calibrated with a
calibration gas that is no higher than 2,000 parts per million above
the concentration specified as a leak and the highest scale shall be
calibrated with a calibration gas that is approximately equal to 10,000
parts per million.
* * * * *
    (6) Monitoring data that do not meet the criteria specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section may be used to qualify
for less frequent monitoring under the provisions in Sec. 63.168 (d)(2)
and (d)(3) or Sec. 63.174 (b)(3)(ii) or (b)(3)(iii) of this subpart
provided the data meet the conditions specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(i)
and (b)(6)(ii) of this section.
    (i) The data were obtained before April 22, 1994.
    (ii) The departures from the criteria specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section or from the specified monitoring
frequency of Sec. 63.168(c) are minor and do not significantly affect
the quality of the data. Examples of minor departures are monitoring at
a slightly different frequency (such as every 6 weeks instead of
monthly or quarterly), following the performance criteria of section
3.1.2(a) of Method 21 of Appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 instead of
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, or monitoring at a different leak
definition [[Page 18077]] if the data would indicate the presence or
absence of a leak at the concentration specified in this subpart.
Failure to use a calibrated instrument is not considered a minor
departure.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) The batch product-process equipment train shall be pressurized
with a gas to a pressure less than the set pressure of any safety
relief devices or valves or to a pressure slightly above the operating
pressure of the equipment, or alternatively the equipment shall be
placed under a vacuum.
    (2) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (4) * * * If such a pressure measurement device is not reasonably
available, the owner or operator shall use a pressure measurement
device with a precision of at least <plus-minus>10 percent of the test
pressure of the equipment and shall extend the duration of the test for
the time necessary to detect a pressure loss or rise that equals a rate
of 1 psig per hour.
* * * * *
    13. Section 63.181 is amended by revising the introductory text in
paragraph (b)(7) and by revising paragraph (b)(7)(ii) to read as
follows:

Sec. 63.181  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) The following information pertaining to all pumps subject to
the provisions of Sec. 63.163(j), valves subject to the provisions of
Sec. 63.168(h) and (i) of this subpart, agitators subject to the
provisions of Sec. 63.173(h) through (j), and connectors subject to the
provisions of Sec. 63.174 (f) through (h) of this subpart shall be
recorded:
    (i) * * *
    (ii) A list of identification numbers for the equipment that is
designated as difficult to monitor, an explanation of why the equipment
is difficult to monitor, and the planned schedule for monitoring this
equipment.
* * * * *

Subpart I--National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Certain Processes Subject to the Negotiated
Regulation for Equipment Leaks

    14. Section 63.190 is amended by revising paragraph (f), paragraphs
(g)(1) introductory text and (g)(2) introductory text, by adding
paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(4), and revising paragraph (i) to read as
follows:

Sec. 63.190  Applicability and designation of source.

* * * * *
    (f) The provisions of subparts I and H of this part do not apply to
research and development facilities or to bench-scale batch processes,
regardless of whether the facilities or processes are located at the
same plant site as a process subject to the provisions of subpart I and
H of this part.
    (g)(1) If an additional process unit specified in paragraph (b) of
this section is added to a plant site that is a major source as defined
in section 112(a) of the Act, the addition shall be subject to the
requirements for a new source in subparts H and I of this part if:
* * * * *
    (2) If any change is made to a process subject to this subpart, the
change shall be subject to the requirements for a new source in
subparts H and I of this part if:
* * * * *
    (3) If an additional process unit is added to a plant site or a
change is made to a process unit and the addition or change is
determined to be subject to the new source requirements according to
paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this section:
    (i) The new or reconstructed source shall be in compliance with the
new source requirements of subparts H and I of this part upon initial
start-up of the new or reconstructed source or by April 22, 1994,
whichever is later; and
    (ii) The owner or operator of the new or reconstructed source shall
comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in subparts H
and I of this part that are applicable to new sources. The applicable
reports include, but are not limited to:
    (A) Reports required by Sec. 63.182(b), if not previously
submitted, Sec. 63.182(c) and (d) of subpart H of this part; and
    (B) Reports and notifications required by subpart A of this part
that are applicable to subparts H and I of this part, as identified in
Sec. 63.192(a) of this subpart.
    (4) If an additional process unit is added to a plant site, if a
surge control vessel or bottoms receiver becomes subject to Sec. 63.170
of subpart H, or if a compressor becomes subject to Sec. 63.164 of
subpart H, and if the addition or change is not subject to the new
source requirements as determined according to paragraphs (g)(1) or
(g)(2) of this section, the requirements in paragraphs (g)(4)(i)
through (g)(4)(iii) of this section shall apply. Examples of process
changes include, but are not limited to, changes in production
capacity, feedstock type, or catalyst type, or whenever there is
replacement, removal, or addition of recovery equipment. For purposes
of this paragraph, process changes do not include: process upsets,
unintentional temporary process changes, and changes that are within
the equipment configuration and operating conditions documented in the
Notification of Compliance Status required by Sec. 63.182(c) of subpart
H of this part.
    (i) The added emission point(s) and any emission point(s) within
the added or changed process unit are subject to the requirements of
subparts H and I of this part for an existing source;
    (ii) The added emission point(s) and any emission point(s) within
the added or changed process unit shall be in compliance with subparts
H and I of this part by the dates specified in paragraphs (g)(4)(ii)(A)
or (g)(4)(ii)(B) of this section, as applicable.
    (A) If a process unit is added to a plant site or an emission
point(s) is added to an existing process unit, the added process unit
or emission point(s) shall be in compliance upon initial start-up of
the added process unit or emission point(s) or by April 22, 1997,
whichever is later.
    (B) If a surge control vessel or bottoms receiver becomes subject
to Sec. 63.170 of subpart H, if a compressor becomes subject to
Sec. 63.164 of subpart H, or if a deliberate operational process change
causes equipment to become subject to subpart H of this part, the owner
or operator shall be in compliance upon initial start-up or by April
22, 1997, whichever is later, unless the owner or operator demonstrates
to the Administrator that achieving compliance will take longer than
making the change. The owner or operator shall submit to the
Administrator for approval a compliance schedule, along with a
justification for the schedule. The Administrator shall approve the
compliance schedule or request changes within 120 calendar days of
receipt of the compliance schedule and justification.
    (iii) The owner or operator of a process unit or emission point
that is added to a plant site and is subject to the requirements for
existing sources shall comply with the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of subparts H and I of this part that are applicable to
existing sources, including, but not limited to, the reports listed in
paragraphs (g)(4)(iii)(A) and (g)(4)(iii)(B) of this section.
    (A) Reports required by Sec. 63.182 of subpart H of this part; and
    (B) Reports and notifications required by subpart A of this part
that are applicable to subparts H and I of this part, as identified in
Sec. 63.192(a) of this subpart.
[[Page 18078]]

    (i) If a change that does not meet the criteria in paragraph (g)(4)
of this section is made to a process unit subject to subparts H and I
of this part, and the change causes equipment to become subject to the
provisions of subpart H of this part, then the owner or operator shall
comply with the requirements of subpart H of this part for the
equipment as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 3
years after the equipment becomes subject.
    (1) The owner or operator shall submit to the Administrator for
approval a compliance schedule, along with a justification for the
schedule.
    (2) The Administrator shall approve the compliance schedule or
request changes within 120 calendar days of receipt of the compliance
schedule and justification.
* * * * *
    15. Section 63.191 is amended by adding in alphabetical order
definitions for ``bench-scale batch process,'' ``process unit,'' and
``source'' to paragraph (b) and revising the definition of
``pharmaceutical production process'' in paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec. 63.191  Definitions.

    (b) * * *
    Bench-scale batch process means a batch process (other than a
research and development facility) that is capable of being located on
a laboratory bench top. This bench-scale equipment will typically
include reagent feed vessels, a small reactor and associated product
separator, recovery and holding equipment. These processes are only
capable of producing small quantities of product.
* * * * *
    Pharmaceutical production process means a process that synthesizes
pharmaceutical intermediate or final products using carbon
tetrachloride or methylene chloride as a reactant or process solvent.
Pharmaceutical production process does not mean process operations
involving formulation activities, such as tablet coating or spray
coating of drug particles, or solvent recovery.
* * * * *
    Process unit means the equipment assembled and connected by pipes
or ducts to process raw materials and to manufacture a product. For the
purposes of this subpart, process unit includes all unit operations and
associated equipment (e.g., reactors and associated product separators
and recovery devices), associated unit operations (e.g., extraction
columns), any feed and product storage vessels, and any transfer racks
for distribution of final product.
* * * * *
    Source means the collection of equipment listed in Sec. 63.190(d)
to which this subpart applies as determined by the criteria in
Sec. 63.190. For purposes of subparts H and I of this part, the term
affected source as used in subpart A of this part has the same meaning
as the term source defined in this definition.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-8201 Filed 4-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P