[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40903-40908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-19560]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-7025-2]
RIN: 2060-AH47


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 
Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; amendments and denial of petitions.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA promulgated the Group IV Polymers and Resins national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) on September 
12, 1996. The EPA was petitioned to reconsider the equipment leak 
detection and repair (LDAR) standards contained in the promulgated rule 
as they pertain to polyethylene terephthalate (PET) facilities. On June 
8, 1999, we issued a proposed denial of the petitions for 
reconsideration and issued a direct final rule amendment to extend the 
compliance dates specified for equipment leaks for PET affected 
sources, as a result of the petitions to reconsider the equipment leak 
standards for PET facilities.
    After revising costs and hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions 
reductions using data provided by petitioners and other commenters, the 
EPA is retaining the equipment leak provisions of the promulgated rule 
with one exception; we are modifying the definition of a leak for 
certain ethylene glycol pumps. In addition, we are extending the 
compliance dates for the PET affected sources to comply with the 
equipment leak provisions to August 6, 2002, in order to provide PET 
facilities time to develop an LDAR program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-92-45 contains information considered by EPA in 
the development of the standards for the Group IV Polymers and Resins. 
The docket is available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 
a.m. and 5:00

[[Page 40904]]

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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Keith Barnett, U.S. EPA, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
telephone (919) 541-5605, fax (919) 541-3470, and electronic mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The docket reflects the full 
administrative record for this action and includes all the information 
relied upon by EPA in the development of these petition denials. The 
docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the 
rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members 
of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate 
documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking 
process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their 
preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the 
case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA).) The regulatory text and other materials related to this final 
rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be 
mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's action will also be available on the WWW 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the 
Administrator's signature, a copy of the action will be posted on the 
TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more 
information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at 
(919) 541-5384.
    Regulated Entities. The regulated category and entities affected by 
this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
       Category         SIC  codes     NAICS             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.............         2821       325211  Facilities
                                                  manufacturing PET
                                                  resin using a batch
                                                  dimethyl terephthalate
                                                  (DMT), continuous DMT,
                                                  batch terephthalic
                                                  acid (TPA), or
                                                  continuous TPA
                                                  process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers likely to be interested in the amendments to the 
standards affected by this action. To determine whether your facility 
is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine all of the 
applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1310 of the Group IV Polymers and 
Resins NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
these amendments to a particular entity, consult the person listed in 
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

I. Background

    On September 12, 1996, the EPA promulgated the Group IV Polymers 
and Resins NESHAP (61 FR 48208). Following promulgation, we received 
two petitions for reconsideration regarding the LDAR program provisions 
of the rule, and additional data in support of these petitions. The EPA 
also received petitions regarding other sections of the promulgated 
rule and is responding to those separately.
    The petitions raised two primary issues. One issue stated that the 
light liquid LDAR program was more costly than EPA estimated, was not 
cost effective, and should not have been required. The other issue 
contended that we had not performed a substantive analysis on the heavy 
liquid LDAR program, which was added between proposal and promulgation, 
to determine whether the cost per ton of HAP emissions reductions was 
reasonable; thus, the EPA failed to meet its obligation under section 
112(d)(2) of the CAA. The petitioners requested that we revise the cost 
and cost per ton of HAP emissions reductions of the equipment leak 
program based on new cost and emissions data they provided in support 
of the petitions. The petitioners stated that this revised analysis 
would show that the costs of the LDAR requirements are not reasonable 
and would lead us to delete the equipment leak provisions for PET 
facilities from the Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP.
    In response to the two petitions, in October 1998, we performed an 
analysis that revised the cost and emission reduction estimates that 
supported the equipment leak provisions of the Group IV Polymers and 
Resins NESHAP. Based on that analysis, we proposed to deny the 
petitions for reconsideration in a Federal Register notice that was 
published on June 8, 1999 (64 FR 30456). Based on the comments 
received, we performed a final equipment leak analysis in December 2000 
entitled, ``Final Analysis of Equipment Leak Program for PET Facilities 
Subject to the Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP,'' which is 
available in Docket A-92-45.

II. Summary of Comments and Responses

    Several comments on the proposal to deny the petitions concerned 
costs and the emission factors used to calculate the cost per ton of 
HAP emissions reductions of the equipment leak program. Specifically, 
commenters stated that we had underestimated the costs of the portion 
of the light liquid program based on EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR 60, 
appendix A, monitoring of equipment leaks. They also stated that the 
use of synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI) 
emission factors is inappropriate for PET facilities, and that the use 
of those factors resulted in an overestimation of the HAP emissions 
reductions resulting from the equipment leak provisions as applied to 
PET production facilities. The commenters stated that we should not 
combine portions of equipment leak programs based on one-time equipment 
modifications with portions that require EPA Method 21 monitoring when 
determining whether the cost of the equipment leak program is 
reasonable.
    In response to comments, in the December 2000 final analysis, we 
revised the cost of the EPA Method 21 portion of the equipment leak 
program based on data provided by the commenters. We continue to 
believe that use of SOCMI emission factors is appropriate for PET 
facilities. This is because, in general, the SOCMI and PET facilities 
have comparable process design and process operation, use the same 
types of equipment, and use similar feedstocks. However, in order to 
determine the impact of the differences between the SOCMI emission 
factors and the equipment leak data provided by commenters, we 
performed a final equipment leak cost analysis using industry-supplied 
leak data. The results of that final analysis indicate that the 
incremental cost per ton of additional

[[Page 40905]]

HAP emissions reductions for the equipment leak program is reasonable. 
(See the December 2000 final equipment leak analysis, which is 
available in Docket A-92-45.)
    We did not perform cost analyses which separate portions of the 
equipment leak programs that require one-time equipment modifications 
from the portions that are based on EPA Method 21 monitoring. We 
consider the LDAR program to be a whole program designed to reduce HAP 
emissions from equipment leaks across the total facility. The leaks 
from individual equipment components are considered together due to the 
similarity of the cause of the emissions and the control techniques. We 
do not believe it is appropriate nor necessary to disaggregate 
equipment leak programs by individual component types.
    One commenter stated that there was a discrepancy between heavy 
liquid pump requirements for PET facilities and light liquid pumps for 
polystyrene plants. Specifically, for certain polystyrene pumps, an 
indication of liquids dripping from pump seal bleed ports is not 
considered to be a leak because dripping of fluid is a required feature 
of this type of seal. There are also certain ethylene glycol pumps that 
require dripping of fluid for proper seal operation. In response to 
comments, we have modified the definition of a leak for ethylene glycol 
pumps with this type of seal. Additional details on comments and 
responses may be found in ``Responses to Comments'' memo dated December 
2000 in Docket A-92-45.

III. Results and Conclusion

    The following table presents the cost per ton of HAP emissions 
reductions ratios by subcategory for the December 2000 final analysis 
supporting this final denial of the petitions for reconsideration, the 
October 1998 analysis supporting the proposed denial, the April 1996 
analysis supporting the promulgated Group IV Polymers and Resins 
NESHAP, and the March 1995 analysis supporting the proposed Group IV 
Polymers and Resins NESHAP. These ratios represent the incremental cost 
per additional ton of HAP emissions reductions of going beyond the 
floor of no controls for leaks to requiring facilities to implement an 
LDAR program. In the October 1998 analysis, the cost-per-ton ratios 
ranged from $1,300 to $2,100 per ton of HAP emissions reductions. The 
cost-per-ton ratios of the equipment leak program under the December 
2000 final analysis range from $1,600 to $3,300 per ton of HAP 
emissions reductions.

          Summary of Cost-Per-Ton Ratios of Equipment Leak Program for Group IV Resins--Pet Production
                                       [$/ton of HAP Emissions Reductions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   December 2000   October 1998     April 1996      March 1995
               Process subcategory                final analysis     analysis        analysis        analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMT-Batch.......................................           3,300           2,100             620             960
DMT-Continuous..................................           2,700           1,300             320             730
TPA-Continuous..................................           1,700           1,600           1,500           1,100
TPA-Batch.......................................           1,600           1,600             730           2,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even after analyzing the cost-per-ton ratios using industry-
supplied leak frequency data in lieu of SOCMI emission factors, and 
industry-supplied cost data, we have determined that the costs of the 
equipment leak provisions of the promulgated rule are reasonable. 
Therefore, we are not removing the equipment leak standards from the 
promulgated NESHAP for Group IV Polymers and Resins, and we are not 
modifying any provisions within the equipment leak program of 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart H, except as noted in the following section.

IV. Other Actions

A. Compliance Date Extension

    On February 26, 2001, we issued a direct final rule amendment (66 
FR 11543) to extend compliance dates contained in the promulgated Group 
IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP to August 27, 2001. The revisions 
extended the compliance dates specified in 40 CFR 63.1311(b) and (d)(6) 
for PET affected sources. These compliance extensions were approved 
pursuant to the CAA section 301(a)(1) in order to complete 
reconsideration of equipment leak provisions and any necessary 
revisions to the NESHAP.
    After reconsideration of the equipment leak provisions, we are 
retaining the equipment leak provisions of the promulgated NESHAP. 
However, we are extending the dates for compliance with the equipment 
leak provisions for the PET affected sources to August 6, 2002, so that 
they are able to develop their equipment leak programs.

B. Modification of Leak Definition for Certain Ethylene Glycol Pumps

    In reviewing the comments received on the June 1999 proposed denial 
of petition, we are modifying the definition of a leak for certain 
ethylene glycol pumps which are designed to weep fluids from the seals. 
Seals that are designed to weep fluid will not be considered to be 
leaking. This change was made to be consistent with a similar provision 
for polystyrene pumps.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to review by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
on the basis of the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive 
Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely 
to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Today's action does not fall within any of the four categories 
described above. Instead, it finalizes the denial of the petitions for 
reconsideration, makes a minor revision to the equipment leak 
provisions of the Group IV Polymers

[[Page 40906]]

and Resins rule and provides a compliance extension. The final action 
does not add any additional control requirements. Therefore, this is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' within the meaning of Executive 
Order 12866 and was not required to be reviewed by OMB.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    These final rule amendments do not have federalism implications. 
They will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This is because the 
final action applies to affected sources in PET facilities, not to 
States or local governments. Nor will State law be preempted, or any 
mandates be imposed on States or local governments. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
final action.

C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Today's final action does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments because they do not own or 
operate any of the sources affected by this final rule. Thus, Executive 
Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject 
to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant 
regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, and it is based 
on technology performance, and not on health or safety risks.

E. Executive Order 13211, Energy Effects

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 F.R. 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not 
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we 
must generally prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least-
costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of our regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    The EPA has determined that today's action does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. This action does not impose any 
enforceable duties on State, local, or tribal governments, i.e., they 
own or operate no sources subject to the Group IV Polymers and Resins 
NESHAP and, therefore, are not required to purchase control systems to 
meet the requirements of the NESHAP. Regarding the private sector, 
today's action will affect only 23 existing facilities nationwide. The 
EPA projects that annual economic effects will be far less than $100 
million. Thus, today's action is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
    We have also determined that this action contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. This action does not impose any enforceable duties on 
small governments, i.e., they own or operate no sources subject to the 
NESHAP and, therefore, are not

[[Page 40907]]

required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements of the 
NESHAP.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with these final rule 
amendments. The EPA has also determined that these rule amendments will 
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because no small entities are subject to the NESHAP.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    For the Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP, the information 
collection requirements were submitted to OMB under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. The OMB approved the information collection requirements 
and assigned OMB control number 2060-0351. An Agency may not conduct or 
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR 
part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The EPA has amended 40 CFR part 9, to 
indicate the information collection requirements contained in the Group 
IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP.
    Today's action has no impact on the information collection burden 
estimates made previously. Therefore, the ICR has not been revised.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP includes technical 
standards. Therefore, the EPA searched for applicable voluntary 
consensus standards by searching the National Standards System Network 
(NSSN) database. The NSSN is an automated service provided by the 
American National Standards Institute for identifying available 
national and international standards.
    The EPA searched for methods potentially equivalent to the methods 
required by the Group IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP, all of which are 
methods previously promulgated by EPA. The NESHAP includes methods that 
measure: (1) Determination of excess air correction factor (percent 
oxygen)(EPA Method 3B); (2) sampling site location (EPA Method 1 or 
1A); (3) volumetric flow rate (EPA Methods 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D); (4) gas 
analysis (EPA Method 3); (5) stack gas moisture (EPA Method 4); (6) 
concentration of organic HAP (EPA Method 18 or 25A); and (7) organic 
compound equipment leaks (EPA Method 21). These EPA methods are found 
in appendix A to 40 CPR part 60.
    No potentially equivalent methods for the methods in the final rule 
were found in the NSSN database search, and none were brought to our 
attention in comments on the proposed action. Therefore, the EPA has 
decided to use the methods listed above.

J. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this final rule 
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). These final rule amendments will be effective on August 6, 
2001.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 31, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter 1, part 
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIRPOLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

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

Subpart JJJ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous AirPollutant 
Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins

    2. Section 63.1311 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and 
(d)(6), to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1311  Compliance dates and relationship of this subpart to 
existing applicable rules.

* * * * *
    (b) New affected sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction after March 29, 1995 shall be in compliance with this 
subpart upon initial start-up or by June 19, 2000, whichever is later, 
except that new affected sources whose primary product, as determined 
using the procedures specified in Sec. 63.1310(f), is PET shall be in 
compliance with Sec. 63.1331 upon initial start-up or August 6, 2002, 
whichever is later.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6) Nothhstanding paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section, 
existing affected sources whose primary product, as determined using 
the procedures specified in Sec. 63.1310(f), is PET shall be in 
compliance with Sec. 63.1331 no later than August 6, 2002.
* * * * *
    3. Section 63.1331 is amended by revising (a)(6) introductory text 
and adding paragraph (a)(6)(v), to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1331  Equipment leak provisions.

* * * * *
    (a)* * 
    (6) For pumps, valves, connectors, and agitators in heavy liquid 
service; pressure relief devices in light liquid or heavy liquid 
service; and instrumentation systems; owners or operators of affected 
sources producing PET shall comply with the requirements of paragraphs 
(a)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section instead of with the requirements of 
Sec. 63.139. Owners or operators of PET affected sources shall comply 
with all other provisions of subpart H of this part for pumps, valves, 
connectors, and agitators in heavy liquid service;

[[Page 40908]]

pressure relief devices in light liquid or heavy liquid service; and 
instrumentation systems, except as specified in paragraphs (a)(6)(iii) 
through (v) of this section.
* * * * *
    (v) Indications of liquids dripping, as defined in subpart H of 
this part, from packing glands for pumps in ethylene glycol service 
where the pump seal is designed to weep fluid shall not be considered 
to be a leak. Ethylene glycol dripping from pump seals must be captured 
in a catchpan and returned to the process.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-19560 Filed 8-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P