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

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withdrawn.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organic solvent cleaners are also being withdrawn with this document.

DATE: These proposed rules are withdrawn as of October 18, 1996.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