[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-22135]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: September 9, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL-5068-2]
RIN 2060-AF08
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources Cold Cleaning
Machine Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Withdrawal of proposal; notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes to withdraw the June 11, 1980, proposal
and proposes a new 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJ consisting of
Secs. 60.360 through 60.363 to cover those volatile organic compounds
(VOC) used in cold cleaning machine operations that are not covered
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart T.
The proposed standard would limit emissions of VOC from new,
modified, and reconstructed cold cleaning machines with solvent-air
interface areas greater than or equal to 1.8 square meters (19 square
feet). Cold cleaning machines are units specifically designed to clean
parts with liquid solvent at a temperature below the solvent boiling
point.
The proposed standards implement section 111 of the Act and are
based on the Administrator's determination that cold cleaning machines
belong to a category of sources that cause, or contribute significantly
to, air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare. The intent of the standards is to require new,
modified, and reconstructed cold cleaning machines with surface areas
larger than or equal to 1.8 square meters (19 square feet) to control
emissions to the level achievable by the best demonstrated system of
continuous emission reduction, taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health, and
environmental impact and energy requirements.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before November 8,
1994.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by September 30, 1994. If anyone contacts the EPA
requesting a public hearing, a public hearing will be held on October
11, 1994 beginning at 9 a.m. Persons interested in attending the
hearing should contact Ms. Marguerite Thweatt of the EPA, at (919) 541-
5607 to verify that a hearing will be held.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in
duplicate, if possible) to Docket No. A-94-08 at the following address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center (MC-6102), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
The Agency requests that a separate copy also be sent to the contact
person listed below.
The public hearing will be held at the EPA's Office of
Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
The docket is located at the above address in room M-1500,
Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday; telephone number (202) 382-7548. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
proposed standard, contact Mr. Paul Almodovar, Chemicals and Petroleum
Branch, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-0283.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed regulatory text is not included
in this Federal Register notice, but is available in Docket No. A-94-
08, or from the EPA contact person designated in this notice. The
proposed regulatory language is also available on the Technology
Transfer Network (TTN), on the EPA's electronic bulletin boards. This
bulletin board provides information and technology exchange in various
areas of air pollution control. The service is free, except for the
cost of a telephone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for up to a 14,400 bps
modem. If more information on TTN is needed call the HELP line at (919)
541-5384.
The proposed regulatory text and other materials related to this
rulemaking including the Background Information/Basis and Purpose
Document, which describes the factual data on which the proposed rule
is based, the methodology used in obtaining the data and in analyzing
it, and the major legal interpretations and policy considerations in
more detail, are available for review in the docket.
I. Introduction
A. Background
On June 11, 1980, the EPA proposed standards of performance for
organic solvent cleaners (45 FR 39765). The proposed standards would
have limited emissions of volatile organic compounds, and
trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, methylene chloride, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, and trichlorotrifluoroethane from new, modified, and
reconstructed organic solvent cleaners. The EPA also proposed that
standards be developed under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act for
the control of emissions from existing facilities of the five
halogenated organic solvents listed above. The applicability date for
that proposal was deferred (46 FR 22768, April 21, 1981) pending notice
of a later applicability date in the Federal Register. That later
notice was never published.
Since the standards of performance of organic solvent cleaners were
proposed (45 FR 39765), a national emission standard for hazardous air
pollutants for halogenated solvent cleaners has been proposed and is
scheduled for promulgation in November 1994 (40 CFR part 63, subpart
T). The subpart T standards do not cover nonhalogenated volatile
organic compounds often used in cold cleaning machine operations (e.g.,
mineral spirits, Stoddard solvents, naphthas).
Therefore, today's action proposes to withdraw the June 11, 1980,
proposal and proposes a new 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJ consisting of
Secs. 60.360 through 60.363 to cover those volatile organic compounds
(VOC) used in cold cleaning machine operations that are not covered
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart T.
B. Legal Authority and Applicability
New source performance standards (NSPS) implement section 111 of
the Clean Air Act (Act). The NSPS are issued for categories of sources
that the Administrator determines cause, or contribute significantly
to, air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare. They apply to new stationary sources of emissions,
i.e., sources whose construction, reconstruction, or modification
begins after a standard for them is proposed.
An NSPS requires these sources to control emissions to the level
achievable by ``best demonstrated technology,'' or ``BDT,'' which is
described for equipment and work practice standards as follows:
* * * The best technological system of continuous emission
reduction which (taking into consideration the cost of achieving
such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated. [Section 111(h)(1)].
This notice of proposed rulemaking is applicable to owners or
operators of immersion cold cleaning machines that are new, modified,
or reconstructed after September 9, 1994. Specifically, this proposed
rulemaking applies to owners or operators of immersion cold cleaning
machines with a solvent-air interface area larger than or equal to 1.8
square meters (m\2\) (19 square feet (ft\2\)) that use VOC solvents.
The selection of this level is discussed in section I.C.
Under section 111(a)(5) of the Act, an owner or operator is any
person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises a stationary
source. Under section 111(a)(3) of the Act, a stationary source is any
building, structure, facility, or installation that emits or may emit
any air pollutant.
There are two basic types of cold cleaning machines used in cold
cleaning machine operations: immersion and remote reservoir cold
cleaning machines. An immersion cold cleaning machine is a cold
cleaning machine that is used to clean parts by submerging them in
solvent. Cleaning with sprayed solvent also occurs in some operations.
A remote reservoir machine is a cold cleaning machine that cleans parts
by pumping solvent through a spray hose to a sink-like work area. The
solvent immediately drains back into an enclosed container through a
small opening. Cold cleaning machines are typically machines that are
installed at a particular location for a period of time that may be
several months to several years. Once a machine is manufactured, the
machine's configuration does not change from location to location.
Although the machine does not emit any air pollutant until it is filled
with solvent and actually used for cleaning, it will emit pollutants
once it is actually used. Therefore, a cold cleaning machine becomes a
stationary source when it is initially positioned at the place where it
will first be used, which is the place where it may first emit VOC. The
machine remains a stationary source throughout its useful life, even
though the machine may eventually be installed at a number of different
locations.
Upon proposal of an NSPS, a new source is subject to the
promulgated standard. For cold cleaning machines, this means a source
is subject to the final NSPS requirements, once they are promulgated,
when it is positioned at the location where it will first be used, even
if it is subsequently moved to a different location prior to
promulgation of the final NSPS. A cold cleaning machine is also subject
to NSPS requirements when it is modified or reconstructed after
September 9, 1994. The EPA solicits comments on this approach to
regulating sources that may change location during their useful life.
C. Overview of Proposed Rule
The proposed standards limit the emissions of VOC from new,
modified, and reconstructed immersion cold cleaning machines. The VOC
solvents are used to clean metal, plastic, fiberglass, and other types
of material. The proposed standard is a combination of equipment and
work practice requirements as authorized under section 111(h).
Under the Act there are two alternatives available for establishing
NSPS for stationary sources. Section 111(b) provides for establishing
emission limitations or percentage reductions in emissions from these
sources. Section 111(h) provides that the EPA may promulgate design
equipment, work practice, or operational standards or combination
thereof, when emission limitations or percentage reduction in emissions
are not feasible. Under section 111(h), the standards prescribed
require new, modified, and reconstructed cold cleaning machines to use
the best technological system of continuous emission reduction, taking
into consideration cost, non-air quality health and environmental
impact, and energy requirements that has been adequately demonstrated.
The emissions from immersion cold cleaning machines are fugitive,
that is, they are not emitted from a stack or similar opening;
therefore, the methods for measuring solvent loss are impractical
because of the length of time required to accurately determine solvent
losses and the disruption in cleaning operations that would be
necessary in order to take measurements. Therefore, the EPA has
determined that it is not feasible to enforce emission limitations or
percentage reductions in emissions for immersion cold cleaning
machines. For these reasons, an equipment and work practice standard
under section 111(h) has been selected. The EPA solicits comments on
this approach and whether other types of standards would be feasible.
The proposed cold cleaning equipment standards for cold cleaning
machines include covers, raised freeboards, solvent pump pressure
design limits, and labels specifying work practice requirements. The
EPA believes work practices for cold cleaning machines are required to
assure the maximum effectiveness of a specific piece of control
equipment, and will further reduce solvent emissions. These proposed
standards are all pollution prevention techniques because they minimize
the solvent vapor loss from the machine and encourage reuse of solvent.
Batch and in-line cold cleaning machines using halogenated HAP
solvents are regulated by the halogenated solvent cleaner NESHAP,
scheduled for promulgation in November 1994 (40 CFR part 63, subpart
T). The proposed NSPS regulations would affect owners and operators of
new immersion cold cleaning machines with a solvent-air interface
greater than or equal to 1.8 m\2\ (19 ft\2\) that use VOC solvents or
solvent blends that are not covered by the halogenated solvent cleaner
NESHAP. Because lessors and lessees are included in the definition of
owner or operator, they are also affected by the NSPS.
A summary of the proposed equipment and work practice standards is
presented in table 1. An owner or operator of a cold cleaning machine
subject to the NSPS would be required to comply with the equipment
standard and associated work practices. The EPA solicits comment on
these equipment standards and work practices and whether there are any
additional measures that should be included.
Table 1.--Equipment and Work Practice Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleaning machine type Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immersion cleaning machines with solvent-air
surface areas larger than or equal to 1.8 m2 (19
ft2)
Equipment......................................... (1) Cover that can
be readily closed.
(2) Drain rack.
(3) Freeboard ratio
of at least 0.5 [or
0.7 if the solvent
has a volatility of
greater than 4.3
kilopascals (kPa)
(0.6 pounds per
square inch)].
(4) Visible fill
line.
(5) Flexible hose or
flushing device
pump pressure shall
be designed to not
exceed 69 kPa (10
pounds per square
inch).
(6) Permanent label
on each machine
stating required
work practices, and
if the freeboard
ratio is less than
0.7, the label
shall include a
list of solvents
that may be used.
Work Practice..................................... (1) Solvent level
shall not exceed
the fill line.
(2) Solvent spray
shall be delivered
in continuous
stream; flushing is
to be performed in
the freeboard area.
(3) Agitators shall
produce a rolling
motion without
observable
splashing.
(4) Cover shall be
kept closed when
machine not in use
or when parts are
being cleaned by
agitation.
(5) When the cover
is open, the
machine shall not
be exposed to
drafts greater than
40 meters per
minute (m/min) (132
feet per minute (ft/
min)).
(6) Cleaned parts
shall be drained
for 15 seconds or
until dripping has
stopped, whichever
is longer.
(7) Waste solvent
and products shall
be stored in closed
containers.
(8) Spills shall be
wiped up
immediately and the
wipe rags stored in
covered containers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA established these standards based on an evaluation of BDT.
The EPA determined that BDT for machines with solvent-air interface
areas of less than 1.8 m\2\ (19 ft2) was equivalent to the
equipment design in existence in the absence of an NSPS. Existing cold
cleaning machines smaller than 1.8 m\2\ (19 ft2) were determined
to be at BDT; and no work practice or monitoring, reporting, or
recordkeeping is warranted because the cost of such requirements would
be unreasonable with little or no emission reduction benefit. The EPA
determined that BDT for machines with solvent-air interface areas of
1.8 m\2\ (19 ft2) or greater included additional requirements.
These requirements include work practice requirements, as well as
reporting requirements. These requirements were considered to be
warranted because the cost of such requirements for a cleaning machine
at this size would be reasonable given the potential emission reduction
($2,240/Mg [$2,040/ton]). The cost effectiveness of control for
cleaning machines with solvent-air interface areas greater than 1.8
m\2\ (19 ft2) is further reduced. The EPA solicits comments on the
selection and appropriateness of the 1.8 m\2\ (19 ft2) solvent-air
interface area applicability cut off.
Compliance with the proposed standards would be determined through
an initial notification report from the owner or operator demonstrating
equipment standard compliance. Information supporting compliance
equivalence for equipment standard requirements may be provided by the
manufacturers. Enforcement of the work practices is through inspections
by enforcement personnel. Reporting requirements also include an annual
report of equipment standard continued compliance. The EPA solicits
comment on the suitability of these compliance provisions.
The EPA is proposing to exempt cold cleaning machines located at
nonmajor sources from 40 CFR 70.3 (b)(2) operating permit requirements.
This proposed exemption has been included because it was determined
that the permitting process could be burdensome for owners or operators
of cold cleaning machines that are not themselves major sources and are
not located at a major source. In addition, cold cleaning machines may
change location often, with permitting thereby increasing the
administrative burden on the permitting authority without providing
significant additional environmental benefit.
D. Solicitation of Comments
The EPA specifically requests comment on the following issues:
1. As discussed in section I.C., the EPA solicits comments on the
selection and appropriateness of the 1.8 m\2\ (19 ft2) solvent-air
interface area applicability cut off. Specifically, the EPA requests
comments on the reasonableness of setting standards for cleaning
machines smaller than 1.8 m\2\ (19 ft2).
2. As discussed in section I.B., the EPA solicits comments on the
proposed approach to regulating sources that may change location during
their useful life.
3. As discussed in section I.C., the EPA is proposing regulations
that consist of a combination of equipment and work practice standards
that allow for the best emission control and for enforceability. The
EPA solicits comments on this approach and whether other types of
standards would be feasible.
4. As discussed in section I.C., the EPA solicits comment on the
proposed equipment standards and work practices and whether there are
any additional measures that should be included.
5. As discussed in section I.C., the EPA solicits comment on the
suitability of the reporting compliance provision requirements.
6. The proposed rule includes a requirement that a facility
maintain a windspeed below 40 meters per minute (132 feet per minute),
unless the facility can demonstrate that a higher windspeed is
necessary to meet the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) ventilation requirements contained in 29 CFR 1910.94(d)(3) or
any updated version of this section, or any other OSHA standard that
sets a minimum ventilation rate. The EPA does not believe that any
situation would exist that would require the use of increased drafts to
meet the OSHA ventilation requirements.
The OSHA ventilation requirements for open surface tanks contained
in 29 CFR part 1910 are only one of a number of occupational worker
exposure control measures presented. Other control measures presented
include tank covers, foams, beads, chips, or other materials floating
on the tank surface that confine gases. Even if an owner or operator
chooses to use ventilation, the ventilation requirements presented in
table G-15 of 29 CFR 1910.94(d)(4)(iii) for most open tanks are below
40 meters per minute (132 feet per minute).
There are ventilation requirements for certain hazardous class of
compounds used in certain tank sizes that exceed 40 meters per minute
(132 feet per minute) (i.e., 150 feet per minute [46 meters per
minute]). However, this 150 feet per minute (46 meters per minute) is
measured at the lip of the exhaust hood and the proposed regulation
draft limit is measured between 1 and 2 meters (3.3 and 3.6 feet)
upwind of the tank at the same elevation as the tank lip. The EPA does
not believe that a 150 feet per minute (46 meters per minute) measured
at the face of the exhaust hood is likely to translate into a
ventilation rate higher than 40 meters per minute (132 feet per minute)
measured upwind at the same elevation as the tank lip. However, the EPA
has included the allowance demonstration requirement to avoid any
possible conflicting requirements. The EPA solicits comment and data on
situations where the EPA windspeed requirement might conflict with a
OSHA requirement.
The following comments on the regulatory approach are requested in
the Background Information/Basis and Purpose Document (see ADDRESSES).
1. In determining the regulatory baseline emissions for the cold
cleaning operations source, it was assumed that the distribution of
cleaning machines would be proportionate to population density. The EPA
solicits comment with supporting information and data on another method
that would yield an alternative estimate.
2. In determining the regulatory baseline emissions for the cold
cleaning operations source, it was assumed that the percent of
population in attainment and nonattainment areas is equivalent to the
percent of cleaners in attainment and nonattainment areas. The EPA
solicits comment with supporting information and data on another method
that would yield an alternative estimate.
3. The EPA determined, based on existing data, that increasing the
drainage time of a part from 5 to 15 seconds can reduce overall solvent
emissions from cold cleaning machines by about 10 percent. Although no
data is readily available on emission reductions associated with the
other work practices listed above, it is estimated that these
techniques along with the drainage requirements can reduce overall
emissions by about 15 percent. The EPA solicits comment and data on
this assumption. The EPA specifically requests available emission
reduction data associated with work practices.
II. Public Participation
A. Written Comments
The EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its final
decisions, and strongly encourages comments on all aspects of this
proposal from all interested parties. Whenever applicable, full
supporting data and detailed analysis should be submitted to allow the
EPA to make maximum use of the comments. All comments should be
directed to the EPA Air Docket, Docket No. A-94-08. Comments on this
notice will be accepted until the date specified in DATES.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other
comments, and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information.''
Submissions containing such proprietary information should be sent
directly to the contact person listed above, and not to the public
docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently
placed in the docket. Information covered by such a claim of
confidentiality will be disclosed by the EPA only to the extent allowed
and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of
confidentiality accompanies the submission when it is received by the
EPA, it may be made available to the public without further notice to
the commenter.
B. Public Hearing
Any affected person desiring to present testimony at the public
hearing (see DATES) is asked to notify the contact person listed above
at least seven days prior to the day of the public hearing. The contact
person should also be provided an estimate of the time required for the
presentation of the testimony and notified of any need for audio/visual
equipment. A sign-up sheet will be available at the registration table
the morning of the hearing for scheduling the order of testimony. The
EPA suggests that sufficient copies of the statement or material to be
presented be brought to the hearing for distribution to the audience.
In addition, it would be helpful to receive an advance copy of any
statement or material to be presented at the hearing prior to the
scheduled hearing date. All materials submitted will be made a part of
the official record for this rulemaking.
The hearing will be conducted informally, and technical rules of
evidence will not apply. Written transcripts of the hearing will be
made available for public inspection and copying during normal working
hours at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in
Washington, DC (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
III. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by section
111 of the Act: 42 U.S.C. 7411.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the EPA
must determine whether a regulation is ``significant'' and therefore
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The 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 entitlement, 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.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, the OMB determined
that this rule is a ``significant'' regulatory action and has thereby
been reviewed by the OMB.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the
EPA to consider potential impacts of proposed regulations on small
``entities.'' If a preliminary analysis indicates that a proposed
regulation would have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis must be
prepared.
For the variety of directly affected industry sectors, the Small
Business Administration's definition of small entity is independently
owned and operated companies ranging from less than 500 to 1,000
employees in the manufacturing sectors, and less than $3.5 million in
sales in the automotive service sectors. An estimate of the number of
small businesses that would be directly affected by the proposed
standards could not be feasibly obtained; however, a majority of the
companies in the affected sectors are likely to be small businesses.
Economic impacts were estimated based on small, independently owned
and operated model facilities. As stated in the accompanying ``Basis
and Purpose'' document summarizing economic impacts, the impact of the
proposed rule on these entities is likely to be insignificant in terms
of changes in demand, changes in expansion plans and employment, and
changes in profitability. Based on these analysis results it is
reasonable to conclude that small entities, regardless of their number,
are not significantly affected.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify
that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection document has been prepared by the EPA (ICR. No.
1707.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information
Policy Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2136,
401 M Street, SW., Washington DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
This collection of information has an estimated annual reporting
burden per respondent of 1.2 hours. This burden is 0.5 hours less than
the burden used in the regulatory analysis. This burden includes time
for reviewing instructions and completing the required reports.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspects of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden to: Chief Information Policy Branch, Mail Code 2136, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC
20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compound.
Dated: August 31, 1994.
Jonathan Z. Cannon,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-22135 Filed 9-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P