[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 203 (Friday, October 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54377-54381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26816]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[FRL-5637-5]


Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources: Starch 
Production Plants, Cold Cleaning Machine Operations, and Organic 
Solvent Cleaners

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed standards of performance, final action.

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

SUMMARY: New source performance standards (NSPS) required by section 
111 of the Clean Air Act (Act) were proposed on September 8, 1994 (59 
FR 46381) for new, modified, and reconstructed starch production 
plants, and on September 9, 1994 (59 FR 46602) for new, modified, and 
reconstructed cold cleaning machines. After a thorough review and 
analysis of the comments received during the public comment period, the 
Administrator has concluded that the proposed NSPS for these two source 
categories are not needed. The proposed NSPS are, therefore, being 
withdrawn.
    In the September 9, 1994 notice proposing the NSPS for cold 
cleaning machines, the EPA proposed to withdraw the NSPS for organic 
solvent cleaners proposed on June 11, 1980 (45 FR 39765). The NSPS for 
organic solvent cleaners are also being withdrawn with this document.

DATE: These proposed rules are withdrawn as of October 18, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-94-18, containing supporting 
information used in developing the proposed NSPS for starch production 
plants and a detailed discussion of the comments received during the 
public comment period; and Docket No. A-94-08, containing the same 
information pertaining to the proposed cold cleaning machine operations 
NSPS, are available for public inspection and copying at the following 
address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket 
and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20460. 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. The materials are available for review in 
the docket center or copies may be mailed on request from the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center by calling (202) 260-7548 or 
7549. The FAX number for the Center is (202) 260-4000. A reasonable fee 
may be charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning specific 
aspects of this action, contact Mr. William Maxwell [(919) 541-5430], 
Combustion Group [starch production facilities] or Mr. Daniel Brown 
[(919) 541-5305], Coatings and Consumer Products Group [cold cleaning 
machines]. Both contacts are at the Emission Standards Division (MD-
13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Starch

The Proposed Standards

    The proposed NSPS for starch production plants would have limited 
emissions of particulate matter from new, modified, and reconstructed 
facilities that produce dry starch (including modified starches) 
derived from corn, wheat, potatoes, tapioca, or other vegetable 
sources, and facilities drying starch extracted from the wastewater at 
snack food production facilities (e.g., potato chips, french fries). 
Typically, starch production plants are components of larger facilities 
that prepare a variety of products. For example, a corn wet milling 
facility will normally produce a range of products that can include 
animal feed, corn gluten, corn germ, germ meal, corn oil, starch, and 
starch derivatives. Starch derivatives can include modified specialty 
starches, dextrins, dextrose, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, 
ethanol, and a variety of sweeteners. Similar ranges of products may be 
derived from wheat, potatoes, or tapioca.
    The starch facilities that would have been affected by the proposed 
NSPS for starch production plants are new, modified, and reconstructed 
starch dryers; dextrin roasters; and starch transfer, storage, and 
loading facilities at which construction, reconstruction, or 
modification commenced after September 8, 1994. The proposed NSPS would 
not have applied to any existing starch production facility, unless 
such a facility was subsequently modified or reconstructed. At the time 
of proposal, 17 different companies owned and operated the 47 known 
existing starch production facilities: 20 produced starch from corn; 3 
from wheat; 21 from potatoes; 1 from tapioca; and 2 from other 
vegetable sources. These existing facilities are concentrated in the 
midwestern United States, but are found in 19 States across the 
country.
    The proposed NSPS would also not have applied to small dryers; 
small dextrin roasters; or certain starch transfer, storage, and 
loading facilities located at snack food processing facilities. 
Specifically, drum dryers and dryers located at snack food processing 
facilities having a manufacturer's listed dry starch capacity of 907 
kilograms per hour (kg/hr) (2,000 pounds per hour [lb/hr]) or less 
would have been exempt, because of the low level of emissions from 
these dryers. Similarly, dextrin roasters and starch transfer, storage, 
and loading facilities at snack food processing facilities would have 
been exempt if the dry starch capacity of any of the individual 
facilities was 454 kg/hr (1,000 lb/hr) or less, because of the low 
level of emissions from these facilities.
    A starch dryer is the equipment used to remove uncombined (free) 
water from starch slurry through direct or indirect heating. There are 
several types of dryers used at starch production plants, including 
single-pass (also known as one-pass) flash dryers, ring (also known

[[Page 54378]]

as loop) flash dryers, spray dryers, drum dryers, and belt (also known 
as conveyor, tunnel, or apron) dryers. A dextrin roaster is a reactor 
vessel, or a series of vessels, in which starch is reacted, through the 
addition of heat and/or chemicals, to form the modified starch 
``dextrin'' (or ``polydextrin''). Starch transfer, storage, and loading 
facilities include any facility used to blend, mix, mill, grind, 
screen, convey, transfer, store, or load for shipment (into any 
container for shipment, including, but not limited to, bag, truck, and 
rail car) dry starch.
    Specifically, the proposed NSPS would have limited particulate 
matter emissions from ring flash dryers to 45 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf); 
from single-pass flash dryers to 25 mg/dscm (0.01 gr/dscf); and from 
spray dryers, drum dryers, and belt dryers to 10 mg/dscm (0.05 gr/
dscf). The proposed NSPS would also have limited visible emissions from 
dextrin roasters and starch transfer, storage, and loading facilities 
to zero percent opacity.

Rationale for Withdrawing the Proposed NSPS

    The Agency is withdrawing the proposed NSPS for new, modified, or 
reconstructed starch production plants because it has concluded that 
promulgation of such standards of performance would achieve little or 
no emission reduction from starch facilities and, therefore, that 
promulgation of NSPS is unnecessary, not cost effective, and will not 
serve the purposes of the Act. After reviewing comments on the 
September 8, 1994 proposed NSPS, the EPA believes that new, modified, 
or reconstructed starch facilities that would be subject to the 
emission standards will employ the best demonstrated technological 
system of continuous emission reduction (BDT) necessary to meet such 
standards and, hence, will, or already do, meet the performance 
standards without additional regulatory requirements.
    Although starch production facilities are one of the source 
categories on the priority list of major source categories for the 
development of NSPS pursuant to section 111 of the Act (section 60.16), 
in promulgating the priority list the Agency reserved the right to 
remove a source category from the priority list if it subsequently 
determined that promulgating NSPS for a particular source category 
would have little or no effect on emissions. Indeed, not only is it 
likely that promulgating NSPS for new or modified starch facilities 
would achieve little or no emission reduction, but currently available 
information about the relative size and operating practices of the 
starch industry suggests the industry does not pose the environmental 
concern that the Agency originally believed existed over 14 years ago 
when it listed starch production facilities on the priority list of 
major source categories.
    Starch processing and production plants were listed in 1982 as one 
of 59 source categories on the priority list of major source categories 
because of the concern about particulate matter, a criteria pollutant, 
that is emitted from starch processing and production facilities in the 
form of starch dust. Significantly, starch facilities were initially 
identified in the late 1970's as a source of particulate matter for 
inclusion on the priority list of major source categories based on the 
potential for uncontrolled emissions of starch dust from a facility. It 
is, however, not the current practice of the starch industry, if indeed 
it ever was, to allow uncontrolled emissions of starch. As discussed 
below, starch facilities have an economic incentive to minimize losses 
of their product, starch, by recapturing emissions of starch dust to 
the extent possible in order to remain competitive. Accordingly, after 
issuing today's notice that withdraws the proposed NSPS for starch 
facilities, the Agency may remove the starch industry from the priority 
list of major source categories for which NSPS are to be promulgated.

Summary of Public Comments

    None of the five commentors to the proposed standards supported the 
need for the standards. One commentor challenged the need for the NSPS 
and the remaining commentors addressed the technical aspects of the 
proposed standards. The comments that address the technical validity of 
the standards are not discussed in today's notice because they are not 
relevant to the Agency's decision to withdraw the proposed NSPS. A 
summary and analysis of these comments has been placed in the docket 
for the proposed rule.
    The commentor that opposes the proposed NSPS argues that the 
standards are unnecessary, because (1) starch facilities are minor 
sources of particulate matter, (2) the proposed NSPS would not reduce 
emissions from new, modified, or reconstructed starch facilities as 
these facilities will employ BDT that would be required by the 
regulations to meet the proposed emission standards for particulate 
matter, (3) the proposed NSPS would impose significant additional 
administrative and reporting costs with no commensurate environmental 
benefits. The Agency agrees with the comments for the reasons discussed 
below.

Analysis of Comments

    The EPA's analysis indicates that promulgation of NSPS for starch 
production plants would achieve little or no emission reduction from 
starch facilities. Owners and operators of starch facilities have a 
very significant economic incentive to recover as much of the starch 
particulate emissions from their facilities as possible. Unlike other 
facilities where particulate emissions are typically an unwanted by-
product that not only has no economic value but would, in fact, be 
expensive for a facility to capture and dispose of properly, 
particulate emissions at starch facilities are made up of starch, which 
is of course, the very product of economic value that such facilities 
produce for sale. To the extent, therefore, that a starch facility 
captures and minimizes the amount of starch particulates released to 
the environment, it will have that much more starch product for sale 
and, hence, be that much more profitable. Indeed, a starch facility 
that allows the starch that it produces to be wasted as particulate 
emissions to the environment would be less efficient than a competitor 
that does not waste its product and would become less competitive and, 
hence, less profitable than its cleaner and more efficient competitor.
    Pursuant to the proposed NSPS, new, modified, and reconstructed 
starch dryers; dextrin roasters; and starch transfer, storage, and 
loading facilities would have had to use wet scrubbers or fabric 
filters, which is the BDT for starch facilities, in order to meet the 
required emission levels. The EPA's investigations, however, show that 
existing facilities already collect particulate matter from the exhaust 
ducts or vents of the affected facilities for the reasons discussed 
above. Specifically, while most existing starch dryers are, at a 
minimum, equipped with cyclonic collectors, the newer starch dryers are 
equipped with low energy wet scrubbers or fabric filters, either alone 
or in combination with one or more cyclones. Waste water from the 
scrubbers and collected dust from the fabric filters are returned to 
the process and not sent to disposal. Similarly, dextrin roasters and 
starch transfer, storage, and loading facilities employ fabric filters 
to recover starch emissions in dry form for immediate recycle to the 
process. (See docket A-94-18, entry II-A-8, pp. 4+).
    The fact that existing newer starch facilities already employ BDT 
(even

[[Page 54379]]

though they are not required to do so) supports the conclusion that 
promulgating NSPS for new or modified starch facilities would achieve 
little or no emission reduction. Not only would this appear to confirm 
that existing starch facilities must minimize losses of their product 
to remain economically competitive, but it further suggests that any 
new or modified starch facilities, which must function at least as 
efficiently as existing facilities in order to compete with such 
facilities, must equal, if not exceed, the amount of starch recaptured 
by existing facilities and, thereby, effectively control emissions of 
particulate matter at or below the levels of emissions contemplated by 
the proposed NSPS.
    For the reasons discussed above, the Agency anticipates little or 
no reduction in particulate matter emissions from starch facilities by 
mandating maximum emission levels. Arguably, any emission reductions 
achieved by promulgating NSPS would result from improved operation and 
maintenance of starch facilities as a result of the proposed monitoring 
requirements for such facilities. However, it is the EPA's judgement 
that the potential marginal reduction in particulate matter emission 
levels from starch facilities does not justify the additional 
administrative costs (primarily related to monitoring and recordkeeping 
and estimated at approximately $1.6 million nationwide) that would be 
required by the standards of performance.

Cold Cleaning Machine Operations and Organic Solvent Cleaners

The Proposed Standards

    The NSPS for organic solvent cleaners, which were proposed on June 
11, 1980, would have limited emissions of volatile organic compounds 
(VOC) and trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, methylene chloride, 
1,1,1-trichloroethane, and trichlorotrifluoroethane from new, modified, 
and reconstructed organic solvent cleaners. On December 2, 1994, 
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) were 
promulgated for halogenated solvent cleaners (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 
T), and on September 9, 1994, the NSPS for cold cleaning machine 
operations was proposed. The halogenated solvent cleaner NESHAP and the 
proposed NSPS for cold cleaning machine operations eliminated the need 
for the duplicative standards proposed in the NSPS for organic solvent 
cleaners (45 FR 39766). Therefore, the EPA proposed withdrawal of the 
NSPS for organic solvent cleaners when the NSPS for cold cleaning 
machines was proposed.
    The proposed NSPS for cold cleaning machine operations would have 
limited emissions of VOC from new, modified, and reconstructed cold 
cleaning machines. Specifically, the proposed NSPS would have limited 
VOC emissions from cold cleaning machines with a solvent-air interface 
greater than or equal to 1.8 square meters (19 square feet) by 
requiring equipment standards and work practices considered to be BDT.

Rationale for Withdrawing the Proposed NSPS

    The decision to withdraw the proposed NSPS is based on the Agency's 
finding that all cold cleaning machines likely to become subject to the 
NSPS would employ BDT, even in the absence of the NSPS. The EPA 
believes that existing regulations are adequate to protect the public 
health and welfare, and promulgation of the NSPS for cold cleaning 
machines would impose additional administrative burdens without 
providing significant emission reductions. In making this decision, the 
Administrator has concluded that withdrawal of the proposed NSPS is 
consistent with the purposes of section 111 of the Act in light of 
current (and expected future) control patterns for cold cleaning 
machine operations.
    The proposed standards were all pollution prevention techniques 
that minimize the solvent vapor loss from the machine and encourage 
reuse of solvent. The proposed equipment standards for cold cleaning 
machines included covers, drain rack, raised freeboard, visible fill 
line, solvent pump pressure design limits, and a label stating required 
work practices. The proposed work practices included not exceeding the 
tank solvent fill line, flushing performed in the freeboard area with 
continuous stream, operating the agitator without observable splashing, 
closing the machine's cover when it is not in use or when the agitator 
is being used, guarding against air drafts when the machine cover is 
open, draining cleaned parts, storing waste solvent in closed 
containers, and cleaning up spills. Finally, the proposed NSPS 
contained reporting requirements including an initial notification 
report demonstrating equipment compliance and an annual report 
demonstrating continued equipment compliance. The Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) did not find sufficient justification for the annual 
reporting requirement; therefore, that provision would have been 
dropped from the proposed NSPS.
    Notwithstanding that there is currently no NSPS for cold cleaning 
machines, these units are already subject to many, if not all, of the 
regulatory requirements that would be mandated by the NSPS. Cold 
cleaning machines, for example, that use halogenated solvents are 
subject to the NESHAP for halogenated solvent cleaning. Furthermore, 
cold cleaning machines located in non-attainment areas, regardless of 
whether they use halogenated or non-halogenated solvents, are subject 
to reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules established 
pursuant to section 182 of the Act and the 1977 Control Techniques 
Guideline (CTG) for the Control of VOC Emissions from Solvent Metal 
Cleaning. The EPA, therefore, believes that the proposed NSPS 
requirements would be duplicative of existing requirements for cold 
cleaning machines that are already subject to the 1994 NESHAP for 
halogenated solvent cleaning and/or RACT rules based on the 1977 
solvent metal cleaning CTG.
    The existing regulatory requirements establish four levels of 
coverage for cold cleaning machines; the relative stringency of the 
regulatory requirements applicable to each category depends on the type 
of solvent (halogenated, non-halogenated, or mixture of both) used in 
the operation, and whether the operation takes place in an area 
designated as attainment or non-attainment of the national ambient air 
quality standards for ozone.
    The first level of coverage would affect cold cleaning machines 
that (1) use both halogenated and non-halogenated solvents and (2) are 
located in a non-attainment area. These units are subject to both the 
NESHAP and RACT requirements. The existing regulatory requirements 
applicable to machines in this situation not only meet, but exceed, the 
regulatory requirements of the proposed NSPS. The combination of the 
NESHAP and RACT requirements provide for the same five equipment 
standards and nine work practices that would be required by the 
proposed NSPS. Furthermore, cold cleaning machines in this situation 
are also subject to monitoring, recordkeeping, and annual reporting 
requirements that the proposed NSPS would not require.
    The second level of coverage would affect cold cleaning machines 
that (1) use both halogenated and non-halogenated solvents and (2) are 
operated in an attainment area. These units are subject to the NESHAP 
requirements only. The NESHAP requires the same work practices as the 
proposed NSPS and the same

[[Page 54380]]

equipment standards with the exception of the drain rack, the label 
stating the work practices, and the solvent pump pressure design 
limits. As discussed in the Response to Comments Section below, the 
solvent pump pressure design limit as proposed in the NSPS would have 
been deleted if the NSPS had been promulgated. Furthermore, although a 
drain rack is not specified as an equipment standard in the NESHAP, 
draining of cleaned parts is a work practice requirement that 
inherently requires a drain rack, or something of equal utility, to be 
present. Accordingly, the EPA believes that the existing regulatory 
requirements applicable to machines in this situation would provide for 
the same work practices and equipment standards that would be required 
in a final NSPS. Again, cold cleaning machines in this situation are 
also subject to monitoring, recordkeeping, and annual reporting 
requirements that a final NSPS would not have required.
    The third level of coverage would affect cold cleaning machines 
that (1) use only non-halogenated solvents and (2) are located in a 
non-attainment area. These units are subject to RACT requirements only. 
The RACT requirements include several of the work practices proposed in 
the NSPS and all of the equipment standards with the exception of a 
visible fill line. The work practice requirements included in the 
proposed NSPS, but not required by RACT, include not exceeding the 
solvent fill line, flushing to be performed in the freeboard area with 
continuous stream, operating the agitator without observable splashing, 
guarding against air drafts when the machine cover is open, and 
cleaning up spills. It is difficult to verify continued compliance for 
these and all other work practices proposed in the NSPS and required by 
RACT. The work practices, however, are common sense pollution 
prevention techniques that minimize solvent loss and are beneficial to 
the operators of cold cleaning machines. Accordingly, the EPA believes 
the existing regulatory requirements applicable to machines in this 
situation would provide for the work practices and the equipment 
standards (with the exception of a visible fill line) included in a 
final NSPS. A final NSPS would have required an initial notification 
demonstrating compliance with all equipment standards, including a 
visible fill line. Although the absence of a final NSPS in this 
situation could result in cold cleaning machines without a visible fill 
line, as discussed below, the EPA believes all cold cleaning machines 
will be constructed with visible fill lines.
    Finally, the fourth level of coverage would affect cold cleaning 
machines that are (1) located in an attainment area and (2) operated 
with only non-halogenated solvents. These units are subject to neither 
the NESHAP nor the RACT requirements. Although machines in this 
situation are not necessarily subject to RACT rules or the NESHAP, to 
the extent that cold cleaning machines are built to a single standard 
with BDT, the EPA believes that such machines will meet both the RACT 
and NESHAP equipment standards. Based on information available to the 
Administrator, the EPA believes that cold cleaning machines are built 
to a single standard that reflects BDT as specified in the CTG and 
NESHAP such that a machine design can be constructed for sale and/or 
distribution throughout the United States regardless of the machines 
ultimate location in an attainment or non-attainment area. Similarly, 
cold cleaning machines built to a single standard reflecting BDT allows 
the machine operators flexibility in choosing the type of cleaning 
solvent used (halogenated, non-halogenated, or a mixture). Accordingly, 
the EPA believes that machines in this situation would meet the 
equipment standards that a final NSPS would require. The EPA also 
believes that operators of machines in this situation would meet the 
work practices that would be included in a final NSPS. The EPA expects 
that the regulated community would follow such work practices as a 
matter of course to the extent that such practices are pollution 
prevention techniques which benefit the operator and reflect prudent, 
if not standard, operating practices already employed in the industry.
    Under a separate action, the Agency may proceed to revise the 
priority list of major source categories for which NSPS are required by 
deleting the ``organic solvent cleaners'' listing. In finalizing this 
priority list, the Agency indicated that a subsequent finding that any 
NSPS would have little or no effect on emissions would be sufficient 
grounds for removing that source category from the priority list (44 FR 
49223).

Summary of Public Comments

    Ten comment letters were received during the public comment period 
following proposal. Two commenters advised the Agency that there was 
redundancy and duplicative requirements in the proposed NSPS that were 
already required in the NESHAP and the RACT; the other commenters 
addressed various technical aspects of the proposed NSPS. After 
reviewing all the comments, the EPA has concluded that the proposed 
NSPS is not needed. A summary and analysis of the ten comment letters 
received appears in the docket; only those comments pertinent to the 
decision to withdraw the NSPS are discussed here.
    The comment regarding the duplicative requirements in the proposed 
NSPS and NESHAP suggested that cold cleaning machines could be subject 
to both standards which would require unnecessary compliance burden 
with no additional air quality benefit. The comment regarding 
duplicative requirements in the proposed NSPS and RACT rules suggested 
that some State RACT rules are more stringent than the proposed NSPS 
and specific language should be included in the final NSPS stating that 
more stringent RACT rules take precedence over the NSPS. Two of the 
technical comments received were in regard to solvent pump pressure 
design limits stating that certain cleaning operations could only be 
conducted with high pressure solvents and the final NSPS should not 
prohibit these operations. These comments are discussed in the 
following paragraphs.

Analysis of Comments

    The EPA's analysis indicates that the proposed NSPS would achieve 
little or no emission reduction. At proposal, the Agency acknowledged 
that promulgation of the NESHAP for halogenated solvent cleaners 
eliminated the need for the NSPS for organic solvent cleaners and 
proposed withdrawal of that NSPS. The EPA now believes that existing 
regulations for cold cleaning machines in the NESHAP and RACT rules are 
adequate to protect public health and welfare and the proposed NSPS for 
cold cleaning machines is also unnecessary. If the EPA moved forward 
with promulgation of the NSPS, the equipment standard for solvent pump 
pressure would have been eliminated so as not to prohibit necessary 
cleaning operations for some sectors of industry. With the absence of 
this equipment standard, the NESHAP equipment standards are essentially 
the same as the NSPS equipment standards (see rationale for withdrawing 
the NSPS).
    After reviewing its analysis and the submitted comments, it is the 
Agency's judgment that compliance with the NSPS in this instance would 
achieve little or no VOC emission reductions; therefore, the benefits 
of the proposed standards do not justify the additional administrative 
costs that would be required by an NSPS.

[[Page 54381]]

Economic and Regulatory Impacts

    Today's withdrawal of three proposed rules is not a rulemaking; it 
does not impose or relieve any regulatory requirements or costs on the 
regulated community or the national economy.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
Relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Starch production 
plants, Cold cleaning operations, Organic solvent cleaners.

    Dated: October 11, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-26816 Filed 10-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P