Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources Cold Cleaning Machine Operations

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