(,1 2 1/,1( - us epa · request for revision to any sip. each request for revision to the sip shall...

Citation: 58 Fed. Reg. 62566 1993

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)Tue Jun 23 15:03:06 2015

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

62566 Federal Register / VoL 58, No. 227 / Monday, November 29, 1993 / Proposed Rules

public comments on the issuesdiscussed in this document or on otherrelevant matters. These comments willbe considered before taking final action.Interested parties may participate in theFederal rulemaking procedure bysubmitting written comments to theEPA Regional office listed in theAddresses section of this document.

IV. This Action

Proposed ActionEPA is proposing to approve the

amendments to 25 PA Code Chapter121, section 121.1 Definitions, and 25PA Code Chapter 126, section 126.1Oxygenate Content of Gasoline asrevisions to the Pennsylvania SIP.

Nothing in this action should beconstrued as permitting orallowing orestablishing a precedent for any futurerequest for revision to any SIP. Eachrequest for revision to the SIP shall beconsidered separately in light of specifictechnical, economic, and environmentalfactors and in relation to relevantstatutory and regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must preparea regulatory flexibility analysisassessing the impact of any proposed orfinal rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certifythat the rule will not have a significantimpact on a substantial number of smallentities. Small entities Include smallbusinesses, small not-for-profitenterprises, and government entitieswith juriscjction over populations ofless than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 andsubchapter L part D of the Clean Air Actdo not create any new requirements butsimply approve requirements that thestate is already imposing. Therefore,because the Federal SIP approval doesnot impose any new requirements, theAdministrator certifies that it does nothave a significant Impact on any smallentities affected. Moreover, due to thenature of the Federal-state relationshipunder the Act, preparation of aflexibility analysis would constituteFederal inquiry into the economicreasonableness of state action. TheClean Air Act forbids EPA to base Itsactions concerning SIPs on suchgrounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.7410(a)(2).

This action has been classified as a-Table 2 Action by the RegionalAdministrator under the procedurespublished in the Federal Register onJanuary 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225). OnJanuary 6, 1989, the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) waived.Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions from

the requirement of section 3 ofExecutive Order 12291 for a period oftwo years. U.S. EPA has submitted arequest for a permanent waiver for Table2 and Table 3 SIP revisions. The OMBhas agreed to continue the waiver untilsuch time as it rUles on U.S. EPA'srequest. This request continues in effectunder Executive Order 12866 whichsuperseded Executive Order 12291 onSeptember 30, 1993.

The Administrator's decision toapprove or disapprove the SIP revisionwill be based on whether it meets therequirements ofsection 110(a)(2){A)-(K),110(a)(3), and.part D of the Clean AirAct, as amended, and EPA regulationsin 40 CFR part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52.

Environmental protection, Airpollution control, Carbon monoxide,Intergovernmental relations, Reportingand recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.Dated: September 10, 1993.

W. T. Wisniewski,Acting Regional Administrator, Region 1Il.[FR Dec. 93-29142 Filed 11-26-93; 8:45 am]BILLNG cooe 66"

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-4804-4]

National Emission Standards forHazardous Air Pollutants: HalogenatedSolvent Cleaning

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Proposed rule and test method;notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing toregulate the emissions of certain organichazardous air pollutants from new andexisting halogenated solvent cleaningmachines, which are among the sourcesbeing regulated under section 112 of theClean Air Act. The proposed rule wouldrequire sources to achieve emissionlimits reflecting the application of themaximum achievable controltechnology consistent with section112(d) of the Clean Air Act. Theproposed rule would reduce theemissions of the halogenated organicchemicals identified in the Clean AirAct list of 189 hazardous air pollutantsincluding methylene chloride,perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene,1,1,1-trichloroethane, carbontetrachloride, and chloroform. Todetermine the emissions from solventcleaning machines, a new reference testmethod 307 is proposed.

A public hearing will be held, ifrequested, to provide Interested persons

an opportunity for oral presentation ofdata, views, or arguments concerningthe proposed standards for halogenatedsolvent cleaning machines.DATES: Comments, Comments must bereceived on or before January 28, 1994.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts theEPA requesting to speak at a publichearing by December 20, 1993, a publichearing will be held on December 29,1993 beginning at 9 a.m. Personswishing to present oral testimony mustcontact Ms. Lina Hanzely of the EPA at(919) 541-5673 by December 20, 1993.Persons interested in attending thehearing should call Ms. Hanzely at thesame number to verify that a hearingwill be held.ADDRESSES: Comments. Commentsshould be submitted (in duplicate, ifpossible), to: Air Docket CLE-131),ATTN: Docket No. A-92-39, RoomM1500, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, 401 M Street SW.. Washington,DC 20460.

Public Hearing. Persons interested Inattending the hearing or wishing topresent oral testimony should notify Ms.Hanzely, Chemicals and PetroleumBranch. Emission Standards Division(MD-13). U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Research Triangle Park, NorthCarolina 27711, telephone number (919)541-5673.

Background Information Documents.The background information andsupporting documents for the proposedstandards may be obtained from the U.S.Environmental Protection AgencyLibrary (MD-35). Research TrianglePark. North Carolina 27711, telephonenumber (919) 541-2777. Please refer toone or all of the following documents.

Background Information Document:"Halogenated Solvent Cleaning

National Emission Standards forHazardous Air Pollutants BackgroundInformation Document":

Supporting Document:"Status of Alternative Solvents and

Processes to Halogenated SolventCleaning"

Docket. Docket No. A-92-39,containing supporting information usedin developing the proposed standards, isavailable for public inspection andcopying between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30p.m., Monday through Friday. at theEPA's Air Docket, Room M1500. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 401M Street SW., Washington. DC. Areasonable fee may be charged forcopying.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: eorinformation regarding the proposedstandards, contact Mr. Paul Almod6varat (919) 541-0283, Chemicals andPetroleum Branch (MD-13), Emission

fera1 RegAster t Vol. , No. 22? 1 Monday. November Z9. 19 3 Propese R6"

Standards Division, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Research ThanglePark, North Carolin. 277T.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORmdTlOw. Thefollowing outline is provided to aid inreading the preamble to the proposedregulation.1. List of Source Categories and Sebcategeries

A. Halogenated Solvent CleaningOperations- Major and Area SourceDesignation

B. Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Categoryand Subcategories

IL BackgroundA. Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Sonc

Category CharacterizationB. Historitcal Overview

Ill. National Emission Standards forFftzardbs Air PoRutants DecisionIrocss

A. Sourc, of Authority for NationalEmission Standards for Hnza-dows AirPollutants Developmea

B. Citeria for Development of NationalEmission Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants

C. Maximum Achievable ControlTerhnolo~y Flor Determination andW De eoping Regulsfiens. for

Major and Area SourcesIV. Sumary of Proposed Standards

A. Sources Covered hy the Standard.B. Proposed Standards.C. Relationship of Standard to the

Pollution Prevention ActD. Regulftory Agee&

V. Summasy of Envrroamentat, Energy,andEconomic Impacts

A. AirB. Water and Solid WasteC. Energy ImpactsD. Cost ImpactsK Economic hmpects

VI. RationaleA. Selecioof Pokutanmsaad Saws,

Categories for RegulationB. Selection of Emisions to.CO'IIesed by

the StandardsC. Emission Control OptionsD. Development of Regulatory AternativesE. Selectors of Maximum Achievable

Contral TecologiesF. Selection of Fermat for the Proposed

StandardsG. Modification and Recoastructior

ConsiderationsH. Selection of Monitoring RequirementsI. Selection of Recordkeeping and

Reporting RequhrementsJ- Operaing Penmit Program,K. Solicitation etComuent,

VII. Admlnlthatve RequltementsA. Public HearingB. DocketC. Executive Orde 12866D. Paperwork Reduction ActR Reguleoy Flexiblfty Act

. Clom Air Act Ptocedural Requirements

The following acronym and,abbreviation list is provided as an aid inreadingthe preamble to the proposedstandards.

Acronym and Units of MeasureAbbreviatfon List

1990 Amendment9-Cleau Air Act asamended

Act--Cen Air ActAEERL-Air and Energy Eng~mering

Research LaboratoryC=chiorofori-CFC-113=chlorefluorocarbon-213CT=carboia tetrachlerideCTG=control techniques guidelineFBR=freeboeed ratio,ft2=square feetft/min=feet per minuteGACT=generaly available control

technolgyHAP=har.xwous air pallutant)kWH=kilowatt hawskg/hr--kiloaams per hourMACT=maximum achwevable control

technlogm2=square metersMC=methylene chlorideMg=megagramMg/yr=megagrams per yearm/min=meters per minuteNAPCTAC-nationaL air pollution

control technology advisorycommittee

NESHAP=na.ional emission standardsfor hazardous air polutants

NPV=net present vauNSPS,=new- source performance

standardsOMB=Office otManagement and BudgetOSHA=Occupational Safety and Health

AdministrationOTVC=ope, top vapor cleanerPCE=perchlomethyleaeRCRA=Resource Conservation and

Recovery ActRFA=Regulatory Flexibility ActRrA=regulatory impact analysisSAGE=Solvent Alternative GuideSIC=Standard Industrial ClassificationTCA=21,1,-trichloroethaneTCE=trichloroethylenerVOC=volatile organic compound

I. List of Source Categories an&Subcategories

A. Halogenated Sohent CleaningOperations: Major and Area SourceDesignation. Section 112 of the Act requires theEPA to evaluate and control emissionsof HAP. The control of HAP is t beachieved through promulgation ofemission standards under sections112(d) and 112( fo caegories ofsources that emit HAP. The EPApublished a notice in the FederalRegister outlining the procedures usedto identify a preliminary, draf list ofcategories of major sources and areasources of HAP on June 21, 1991 (.56 FR285481. OnJuly 1M, 1,OZ (57 FR 115W)2a list of categories of sources was

published. Halogenated solvent cleaningwas listed as a category of both majorand area sources. Accordingly, the EPAis today proposing emissions standardsunder section 12 of the Act forhalogenated solvent cleaning operationsapplicable to both area and majorbourcesr of halogenated solvent cleaningmachines

In the preamble to the list of sourcecategories, a finding of "threat ofadverse effects" wa made for thehalogenated solvent cleaning sourcecategory.

Due to the high usage and emissionsof these cleaners throughout industry, aswell as the large number of cleaners," thEPA determined that there is a greatpotential for exposwe to the HAP's usedas solvents. One of the cleaningsolvents, TCA, has also been implicatedas causing stratospheric ozonedepletion. Trichloroethanel.1,1) will bephased out witk other Agencyregulations under Title V1 of the CAA.

The health effects associated withhalogenated solvent cleaners are bestdocumented for MC, TCE, and PCE.Both MC and TCE are consideredprobable hkman cacinogens aed areclassified in Group B2. while PCE is stillunder review.

Evidence indicating thecarcinogenicity of MC is availablethrough animal studies. Animalinhalation studies on MC heve shownsignificant increases in liver and km&adenomas and ccinomas in both malesand females. Other animal studies haveindicated that exposure to elevatedlevels of MC can cause benignmammary tumors, Based upon this,available animal evidence, the Agencyhas deboamined that MC is a probablehumm carcinogen, In additioi to theseadverse effects. short-term exposure-toMC has been known to causeimpairments in central nervous system(CHS) functioning. Case reports ofexposum to, MC have shown thathumans exposed to MC exhibitednarcosis, irritability, analgesia, andfatigue.

Both PCE and TCE are moderatelytoxic substances that apper to targ theCNS, causing dizziness, headaches andslowing of mental activity. Over longerperiods of expoure, these adverseeffects may also be seen in the liver andkidneys as well as the eyes and apperrespiratory tract. The cacinogniceffects from both these chemicals hasalso been investigated, most y throughanimal experiments. Results of TCEtests indicate that inhalaion may resultin the formation of ren-a tmoirs. OtherTCE studies suggest tha ina oa isfetotaexic and may caseW aitter resptiomand reduced fetal body weight.

U567

62568 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 227 / Monday, November 29, 1993 / Proposed Rules

An Agency analysis has beenconducted of nationwide exposures,individual lifetime risks, andpopulation incidence from halogenatedsolvent cleaners emissions. Thisanalysis estimates that as many as sixincreased cancer cases are attributableto halogenated solvent cleaners,annually, in the U.S. This study alsosuggests that upper-bound maximumindividual lifetime risks in theproximity of these cleaners range fromone in 1,000,000 (1 x 10-6) to one in10,000 (1 x 10-4). Nationally, themaximum individual risk near a largefacility with multiple conveyorizedcleaners is as high as five in 10,000 (5X 10-4).

Based upon the evidence presented,the Agency found that cleaners usinghalogenated solvents present a threat ofadverse impact to human health or theenvironment. The Agency thereforeadded them to the categories of areasources on their initial list of sourcecategories (57 FR 31576).B. Halogenated Solvent CleaningCategory and Subcategories

The halogenated solvent cleanersource category does not constitute adistinct industry, but is an integral partof many industries. The halogenatedsolvent cleaner source category consistsof two basic types of solvent cleaningmachines: batch and in-line cleaningmachines (also called continuouscleaning machines). Both of theseequipment types' are designed to usesolvent to clean parts. The solvent iseither used to clean in its nonvaporform (referred to as cold cleaning) orheated and used to clean in its vaporform (referred to as vapor cleaning).

Most halogenated solvent use withinthe halogenated solvent cleaner sourcecategory is in vapor cleaning for bothbatch and in-line cleaning machines.The proposed standards cover the use ofany halogenated HAP solvent (e.g., TCA,TCE, MC, PCE, CT, C), either by itselfor in a blend, listed on the HAP list insection 112(b) of the Act and used in asolvent cleaning machine. Thehalogenated solvent CFC-113 is notlisted on the HAP list; therefore,cleaners using this solvent are notcovered by these proposed standards.

Most batch coldcleaning machinesire small maintenance cleaningmachines or parts washers that typicallyuse mineral spirits, Stoddard solvents,and alcohols, which are allnonhalogenated solvents. Because thisstandard applies only to halogen atedsolvents, these nonhalogenated solventprocesses are not included in theproposed standards. The only identifiedmachines that use halogenated solvents

in a batch cold cleaning machineapplication are carburetor cleaners.. Therefore, today's proposedregulations for batch cold cleaningmachines are based on the control ofcarburetor cleaners, but apply to all coldcleaners using halogenated solvents orblends. It should be noted that nonvaporin-line (continuous) cleaning machinesusing halogenated solvents are coveredby the proposed rule for in-line cleaningmachines.

When the initial source category listwas published (57 FR 31576), theAgency stated that the establishment ofsubcategories within a source categorywould be considered during thedevelopment of emission standardsunder authority of section 112(d). Theinitial source category list containedonly one major and one area category forhalogenated solvent cleaning. Solventcleaning machine emissions andemissions reduction potential have beenfound to depend upon a number ofvariables, including size, operatingschedule, and machine type. Theappropriateness of specific controls isdependent on technical feasibility andemission reduction potential. Thehalogenated solvent cleaning sourcecategory has been divided into four sizeranges of batch vapor cleaningmachines, one in-line cleaning machinesize, and one batch cold cleaningmachine size considering the availabledata. It is the intent of the Agency toamend the initial source category list bysubstituting the following halogenatedsolvent cleaning subcategories for thecategories published in the initialsource category list when thehalogenated solvent cleaning regulationis promulgated.

1. Small batch vapor cleaningmachines <0.6 m2 (6.5 ft2); majorand area source list;

2. Medium batch vapor cleaningmachines 0.6 m 2 (6.5 ft2) to 1.21 m 2

(13 ft2); major and area source list;3. Large batch vapor cleaning

machines >1.21 m2 (13 ft2) to 2.51m 2 (27 ft2); major and area sourcelist;

4. Very large batch vapor cleaningmachines >2.51 m 2 (27 ft2); majorand area source list;

5. In-line cleaning machines (vaporand cold) (all sizes); major and areasource list; and

6. Batch cold cleaning machines (allsizes); area source list.

The EPA requests comment on theappropriateness of the subcategorizationproposed today. Comment is alsorequested concerning whether there is abasis for removing any of thesesubcategories from the source category

list. Specific information is requestedconcerning whether the delistingcriteria of section 112(c)(9) are met, orwhether, in the alternative, it would beappropriate, in the case of any proposedsubcategory, to conduct an assessmentunder section 112(c)(3) of the effect onhuman health or the environment beforefinally creating such subcategory andadding it to the source category list.

II. Background

A. Halogenated Solvent Cleaning SourceCategory Characterization

The five most commonly usedhalogenated solvents in solvent cleaningmachines are MC, PCE, TCA, TCE, andCFC-113. These solvents are used aloneand in blends that may contain two ormore halogenated solvents or alcoholand other solvents. However, otherhalogenated solvents, including C andCT, are also used to a limited extent.With the exception of CFC-113, all areHAP covered by these standards.-Although the technical analyses do notinclude data on C and CT halogenatedHAP solvents, these solvents arecovered under the proposed standards.The proposed standards would controlC and CT halogenated solvent emissionsfrom a solvent cleaning machine thesame as for the halogenated HAPsolvents included in the technicalanalyses (i.e., MC, PCE, TCA, TGE).

An estimated 199,700 Mg (219,670tons) of halogenated solvents (i.e., MC,PCE, TCA, TGE) are used in solventcleaning machines annually. Thisestimate represents an estimated 16,400halogenated solvent batch vapor and8,100 in-line (vapor and cold) cleaningmachines nationwide. Of the 199,700Mg (219,670 tons) consumed, anestimated 95,000 Mg (104,500 tons) areconsumed by batch vapor cleaningmachines (primarily OTVC's); and45,800 Mg (50,380 tons) by in-linecleaning machines (including the usefor photoresist stripping). An estimated58,900 Mg (64,790 tons) of halogenatedsolvent is used in cold cleaning. Thiscold cleaning machines halogenatedsolvent consumption estimate isbelieved by the EPA to includecarburetor cleaner (1,400 Mg [1,540tons]) use and other cleaning operationssuch as wipe-cleaning and other clean-up solvent uses. These other operationsare not included in the source categorycovered by today's proposed standards.

The use of TCA and CT is expectedto decline as a result of the phaseout ofthese halogenated solvents mandated byTitle VI of the Act and presidentialorder. However, since their use mayextend into the future, CT and TCA areincluded in the proposed standards.

Federal RUegir I VoL 58, No. 227 / Monday , November 29, 19MX / Proposed Rules

Halogenated solvent consumption hasdecreased over the last decade becauseof solvent recycling efforts, futuremandated production phase-outs forTCA, and environmental andoccupational health concernssurrounding the use of PCE and MC.

The estimated national baseline HAPemissions for the halogenated solventcleaner source category are 128,600 Mg/yr (141,400 tons per year). Batch vaporcleaning machine emissions areestimated to represent 66 percent of theemissions, in-line cleaning machinesrepresent 33 percent, and carburetorcleaners the remaining I percent. Theseemissions estimates reflect the- level ofemission control achieved by theaffected industry in the absence of EPAstandards.

B. Historical Overview

Control technique guidelines wereestablished in 1977 for the control ofVOC from solvent cleaning machines:recommended requirements wereadopted by 33 States. In 1980. NSPSwere praposed for the solvent cleaningmachine industry. The NSPS were neverpromulgated. An alternative controltechnology document for-halogenatedsolvent cleaning machines waspublished in. 1989 after substantialreview by industry.

The EPA was subsequently sued fornot promulgating the NSPS and is underconsent decree to- propose a NESHAPwithin 3 years of the passage of the 1990'Amendments tobe promulgated within1 year of proposal. The requiredproposal date for the halogenatedsolvent cleaner source categoryNESHAP is November 15, 199a. Theinformation from the alternative controltechnology document was updated, asappropriate, in developing the technicalbasis for the proposed NESHAP. These-proposed standards- fulfill the NESHAPproposal requiremepts under theconsent decree.

III. National Emission Standards forHazardous Air Pollinants DecisionProcess

A. Source of Authorily for NationalEmission Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants Development

Title III of the' T990 Amendments wasenacted to help reduce the increasingamount of nationwide air toxicsemissions. Under title III, section 112 ofthe Act was amended to give the EPAthe authority to establish nationalstandards to reduce air toxics fromsources that emit one or more HAP.Section 112(b) contains a list of HAPthat are the specific air toxics to beregulated by a NESHAP. Section 112(c)

directs the EPA to use this. pol htant listto develop and publish a list of sourcecategories for which a NESHAP will bedeveloped. The EPA must list all knowncategories and subcategories of "majorsources" (' mjor sources" emit or havethe potential to emit, consideringcontrols, 9.1 Mg/yr [10 tons per year] orgreater of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr125 tons per year] or greater of totalHAP) that emit one or.more of the listedHAP. Area source (i.e., nonmajor)categories and subcategories selected bythe EPA for NESHAP development willbe based on the Admcinistrator'sjudgment that the sources, individuallyor in aggregate, pose a "threat of adverseeff cts to human health or theenvironment," or alternatively will belisted and regulated under authority ofsection 112.

B. Criteria for Development of NationalEmission Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants

The NESHAP are to be developed tocontrol HAP emissions from both newand existing sources-according to the-statutory direcives set out in section112. as amended. The statute requiresthe standards, to reflect the maximumdegree of reduction in emissions of HAPthat is achievable for new or existingsources. The'NESH'AP must reflectconsideration of the, cost of achievingthe emission redbction, and any nonairquality healthk and environmental-impacts, and energy requirements forcontrol levels mere stringent than, theMACT floors. (As described in sectionIII.C. of this preambb, the MACF flooris the minimum stringency- level forMACT standards, and is determined-according to section 1 12(d of the Act.)'The emission reduction maybeaccomplished through application ofmeasures, processes,. methods, systemsor techniques including, but not limitedto, measures that:

1-. Reduce- the volume of, or eliminateemissions of, such pollutants throughprocess changes, substitution ofmaterials or other modifications;

2. Enclose systems or processes to,eliminate emissions;3" Collect, capture or treat such

pollutants when released fbom aprocess, stack, storage, or fugitiveemission& point;

4. Are desig equipment, workpractice, or operational standards(including requirements for operatortraining or certification) as provided insection 112(h); or

5. Are a combination of the above[section 112(d)(2)].

To develop a NESHAP, the EPAcollects information concerning theindustry, including information on

emissiov source characteristics, controltechnoogies, data from HAP emissiontests at well-controlled facilities, andinformation on the costs and otherenergy and environmental impacts ofemission control techniques. The EPAuses this irformation to analyzepossible regulato approaches.

Although NES .AP are normallystructured in terms of numericalemission limits, alternative approachesare sometimes necessary. In some cases,physically measuring emissions from asource may be impossible or at leastimpracticable due to technological' andcost limitations. Section 112(h)authorizes the Administrator to,promulgate a design, equipment, workpractice, or operational standard-, orcombination thereof, in those caseswhere it is not feasible to prescribe orenforce an emissions standard.

C. Maximum Achi'evable ControlTechnology Floor Determination andProcess of Developing Regulations forMajor and Area Sores

The EPA must set MACT standardsfor each of the source categories listedunder section t 12c) of the:Act thatcontain major source& Such standardsmust be set at a level at least as stringentas the "foor.'.' Congress provides certainvery specific directives to guide the EPAin the process of determining theregulatory flour. As described bekw,area sources may be regulated witheither a MACT standardi or a GACTstandard. A GACT standard is notrequired to e as stringent as. the MACTfloor.

For MACF, Congress specified, thatthe EPA shall establish standards thatrequire "the maximum degree ofreduction in emissions of the HAP* * *that t.he Administrator. taking.into consideration the cost of achnivingsuch emission reduction, and anynonair qua-lity health and environmentalimpacts and energy requirements.determine is adhievable for new orexisting sources in the category orsubcategory to. which such emissionstandard applies * * *" [the Actsection 112td)(2)]. In addition. Congresslimited the Agency's discretion byestablishing a minimam baseine or"floor" for standards, For new soneces,the standards for a so-rce- catego y orsubcaftgory "shaRl not be less stringentthan the emission control that isachieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source, as determinedby the Administrator" [the Act, section112(d)(3)]. Congress provided thatexisting source standards could be lessstringent than new source standards butcould be no less stringent than the'average emission limitation achieved by

62569

62570 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 227 / Monday, November 29, 1993 I Proposed Rules

the best performing 12 percent of theexisting sources (excluding certainsources) for categories and subcategorieswith 30 or more sources or the bestperforming 5 sources for categories orsubcategories with fewer than 30sources [the Act, section 112(d)(3)].

Once the floor has been determinedfor new or existing sources for acategory or subcategory, theAdministrator must set a MACTstandard that is no less stringent thanthe floor. Such standards must then bemet by all sources within the categoryor subcategory. However, in establishingstandards, the Administrator maydistinguish among classes, types, andsizes of sources within a category orsubcategory [the Act, section 112(d)(1)].Thus, for example, the Administratorcould establish two classes of sourceswithin a category or subcategory basedon size and establish a differentemission standard for each class,provided both standards are at least asstringent as the MACT floor.

In addition, the Act provides theAdministrator further flexibility toregulate area sources. Section 112(d)(5)provides that in lieu of establishingMACT standards under section 112(d),the Administrator may promulgatestandards that provide for the use of"generally available controltechnologies or management practices."Area source standards promulgatedunder this authority (GACT standards)would not be subject to the MACT"floors" described above. Moreover, forsource categories subject to standardspromulgated under section 112(d)(5),the EPA is not required to conduct aresidual risk analysis under section112(f).

At the end of the data gathering andanalysis, the EPA must decide whetherit is more appropriate to follow theMACT or the GACT approach forregulating an area source category. Anarea source is "any stationary source ofHAP that is not a major source." Asstated previously, MACT is required formajor sources. If all or some portion-ofthe sources emits less than 9.1 Mg/yr(10 tons per year) of any one HAP (orless than 22.7 Mg/yr [25 tons per year]of total HAP), then it may beappropriate to define subcategorieswithin the source category and apply acombination MACT/GACT approach,MACT for major sources and GACT for

area sources. In other cases, it may beappropriate to regulate both major andarea sburces in a source category underMACT.. The next step in establishing a MACT

or GACT standard is the investigation ofregulatory alternatives. With MACTstandards, only alternatives at least asstringent as the floor may be considered.Information about the industry isanalyzed to develop model plantpopulations for projecting nationalimpacts, including HAP emissionreduction levels, costs, energy, andsecondary impacts. Several regulatoryalternative levels (which may bedifferent levels of emissions control ordifferent levels of applicability or both)are then evaluated to determine theappropriate MACT or GACT level.

he regulatory alternatives for newversus existing sources may be different,and separate regulatory decisions mustbe made for new and existing sources.For both source types, the selectedalternative may be more stringent thanthe MACT floor. However, the controllevel selected must be technicallyachievable. In selecting a regulatoryalternative to represent MACT or GACT,the Agency considers the achievablereduction in emissions of HAP (andpossibly other pollutants that are co-controlled), the cost and economicimpacts, energy impacts, and otherenvironmental impacts. The objective isto achieve the maximum degree ofemission reduction withoutunreasonable economic or otherimpacts.

The selected regulatory alternative isthen translated into a proposedregulation. The regulation implementingthe MACT or GACT decision typicallyincludes sections of applicability,standards, test methods, andcompliance demonstration, monitoring,reporting, and recordkeeping. Thepreamble to the proposed regulationprovides an explanation of the rationalefor the decision. The public is invited tocomment on the proposed regulationduring the public comment period.Based on an evaluation of thesecomments, the EPA reaches a finaldecision and promulgates the standard.

IV. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Sources Covered by the StandardHazardous air pollutant emissions

from the halogenated solvent cleaner

source category and its subcategores arebeing regulated under sections 112(d)and (h) of the Act. The proposedstandards cover the use of anyhalogenated solvent (e.g., TCA, TCE,MC, PCE, CT, C) listed on the HAP listin section 112(b) of the Act in a solventcleaner. The proposed standards wouldregulate listed halogenated HAPemissions from each new and existingbatch and in-line solvent cleaningmachine. The regulated source is theindividual halogenated solvent cleaningmachine.

As authorized under section 112(h) ofthe Act, the proposed standards consistof a combination of equipment controls.work practices, and operationalrequirements to provide the bestdemonstrated HAP emissions control forhalogenated solvent cleaning machines.Alternative emission limits are alsoproposed.

B. Proposed Standards

The standards proposed includemultiple alternatives to allow owners oroperators maximum complianceflexibility. These standards include anequipment standard, in conjunctionwith work practice requirements, and analternative overall solvent emissionsstandard.

If an owner or operator elects tocomply with the equipment standard,they must install one of the controlcombinations listed in the regulation,use an automated parts handling systemto process all parts, and follow multiplework practices. The controlcombinations for new and existing batchand in-line cleaners are shown in table1. As an alternative to selecting one ofthe control combinations listed in theregulation, an owner or operator maydemonstrate that the batch vapor or in-line cleaning machine can meet theidling mode emission limit specified inthe standards. The idling emissionlimits are also shown in table 1. Inaddition to maintaining this idlingmode emission limit, the owner oroperator of a batch vapor or in-linemachine must use an automated partshandling system to process all parts andcomply with the work practicestandards. No idling standard isproposed for batch cold cleaning"machines.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 227 / Monday, November 29, 1993 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1 .- CONTROL COMBINATIONS OR IDLING LIMIT ALTERNATIVES FOR SOLVENT CLEANING MACHINESa

Idling limitsCleaner type/size (M2 solvent/air interface Control combination options or (kg/hrper

area Conrol ombnatin opionsor 2 solvent(area) air interface

area)

Batch vapor cleaning machines (_1.21 m 2) Freeboard ratio of 1.0, freeboard refrigeration device, reduced room draft or ............. 0.15Bi-parting cover used during idling and working modes, freeboard refrigeration de-

vice, reduced room draft or.Bi-parting cover used during idling and working modes, freeboard ratio of 1.0, re-

duced room draft or.Freeboard refrigeration device, manual cover used during idling mode, reduced room

draft .............................................................................................................................Batch vapor cleaning machines (>1.2 m 2) Bi-parting cover used during idling and working modes, freeboard refrigeration de- 0.15

vice, reduced room draft or.Dwell, freeboard refrigeration device, reduced room draft or ........................................Bi-parting cover used during idling and working modes, freeboard refrigeration de-

vice, super heated vapor or.Freeboard ratio of 1.0, reduced room draft, super heated vapor or .............................Dwell, reduced room draft, super heated vapor or ........................................................Bi-parting cover used during idling and working modes, reduced room draft, super

heated vapor or.Bi-parting cover used during idling and working modes, dwell, reduced room draft.

All batch cold cleaning machines ............... Cover, water layer .......................................................................................................... N/AAll existing in-line cleaning machines ........ 1.0 freeboard ratio, freeboard refrigeration device ........................................................ 0.10All new in-line cleaning machines .............. Superheated vapor system, fr(eboard refrigeration device .......................................... 0.10

* Each owner or operator of a solvent cleaning machine would adopt one of the control combinations listed in table 1 or demonstrate that theirsolvent cleaning machine can achieve and maintain specified idling emission limits (kg/hr per m2 solvent/air interface area). N/A = not applicable.

Compliance with the equipmentstandard for all batch vapor and in-linemachines is demonstrated through themonitoring of process parameters. Allcontrols must be monitored eitherweekly or monthly, as specified in theregulation. Annual reports ofmonitoring results, and quarterly reportsof exceedances of monitored parametersare required. Any exceedance of amonitored parameter would be aviolation of the standard. Batch vapor orin-line halogenated solvent cleaningmachine operators are required to betrained in the proper operation (workpractices) of the cleaning machine toensure emissions reduction. If requestedduring an inspection by theAdministrator, an owner or operatorwould need to demonstrate that allbatch vapor or in-line solvent cleaningmachine operators understand andfollow the required work practices. Thiswould be demonstrated by passing anoperator test supplied by the inspector.No monitoring or operator test isproposed for batch cold cleaningmachines.

As an alternative to the equipmentand work practice standard, an owner oroperator of a batch vapor or in-linemachine may elect to demonstrate thatthe solvent cleaning machine emits lessthan the overall solvent emission limitspecified in the standards. Thesespecified emission limits are presentedin table 2. Compliance is demonstratedby maintaining records of solventadditions and removals and using mass

balance equations to calculateemissions. Annual reports inclemission calculations, and quareports of exceedances of the eilimit are required. A cleaning rthat meets the overall solvent elimit is not subject to any otherrequirements, including monitprocess parameters or the workstandards. No alternative emissstandard is proposed for batchcleaning machines.

TABLE 2.-ALTERNATIVE COEMISSION LIMITS FORCLEANING MACHINES

3ir

Solvent cleaning machinelir

Batch vapor solvent cleaningmachines ...............................

Existing in-line solvent cleaningmachines ...............................

New in-line solvent cleaningm achines ...............................

C. Relationship of Standards toPollution Prevention Act

The Congress passed and thePresident signed into law the PPrevention Act of 1990 (PPA) npollution prevention a nationaSection 6602 (b) identifies anenvironmental management hiin which pollution "should be

prevented or reduced whenever feasible;uding pollution that cannot be preventedrterly should be recycled in anmission environmentally safe manner, whenevernachine feasible; pollution that cannot bemission prevented or recycled should be treated

in an environmentally safe manneroring whenever feasible; and disposal or otherpractice releases into the environment should beion employed only as a last resort * * * "cold In short, preventing pollution before it

is created is preferable to trying tomanage, treat or dispose of it after it is

MPLIANCE created.SOLVENT According to PPA section 6603(5),

source reduction is defined as reducingthe generation and release of hazardous

-month roll- substances, pollutants, wastes,ng average contaminants or residuals at the source,

monthly usually within a process. The termemission

mit (kg/m2- includes equipment or technologymonth) modifications, process or procedure

modifications, reformulation or redesignof products, substitution of raw

109.8 materials, and improvements in

153.2 housekeeping, maintenance, training orinventory control. Source reduction

98.5 does not include any practice that altersthe physical, chemical or biological

the characteristics or the volume of ahazardous substance, pollutant orcontaminant through a process oractivity that is not integral to or

'ollution necessary for producing a product ornaking providing a service.1 policy. Pertaining to this proposal, section

6604(b)(2) of the EPA directs the EPA to,erarchy among other things, "review regulations

of the Agency prior and subsequent to

62571


their proposal to determine their effecton source reduction." The EPA believesthat this proposed rule is consistentwith the purpose of the Act'srequirement to consider sourcereduction technologies. The Agency'semphasis on source reduction hierarchyis also entirely consistent with CleanAir Act Amendments of 1990,particularly the air toxics provision(title III) that requires the maximumachievable emission reductions throughmeasures that 'reduce the volume of, oreliminate emissions of, such pollutantsthrough process changes, substitution ofmaterials or othermodifications; * * * " etc.

In todays proposed standards, theEPA has incorporated the application ofthe environmental source reductionmanagement hierarchy. These proposedstandards encourage source reduction asfollows:

1. Encourages elimination orreduction of the need to clean wheneverfeasible. Although the option is notwidely available at this time, there aresome emerging processes andtechnologies that facilitate theelimination or reduction of the need toclean and the industry should beencouraged to move toward this goal;

2. Increases the efficiency of cleaningoperations to reduce the emissions, andthereby reduces the overall use ofhalogenated solvents; this may beachieved through modification ofcertain equipment (e.g., adding a cover,increasing the free board ratio, etc.) orthrough adoption of new technologies(e.g., totally enclosed or vacuumsystems);

3. Improves the housekeepingmeasures, work practices andmaintenance of equipment; and

4. Discourages the use of end-of-pipeor treatment technologies, such ascarbon adsorption units that may havesignificant multi-media impacts.

In addition, a number of alternativesolvents and cleaning processes existthat may further promote sourcereduction in this source category.Alternative solvents include aqueous,semi-aqueous, hydrochloro-fluorocarbons, and organic solvents.Alternative cleaning processes includethe use of ice particles, plasma,pressurized gases, super critical fluids,ultraviolet/ozone, mechanical, thermalvacum deoiling, and no-cleanprocesses that eliminate the need forsurface cleaning. However, there is no"drop-in" alternative to replacehalogenated solvent cleaning operationsat this time and selection of analternative may depend largely on thesubstrate to be cleaned, the type of soilto be cleaned, level of cleanliness

required and other factors. Although theswitch-over to certain alternatives mayeliminate the use and emission ofhalogenated solvents, or reduce animpact to one media, the substitute maynot when considered from a multi-media perspective, lead to an overallenvironmental improvement. Generallyspeaking, many of the alternatives arenot without some trade-offs and cross-media transfer problems. Sourcescontemplating switch-over toalternatives need to carefully weigh thetrade-offs before a decision is made.

For further information regardingalternative solvents, the EPA hasestablished an on-line SolventAlternative Guide, referred to as SAGE.The SAGE is accessible through theEPA's Technology Transfer Networkunder the Control Technology CenterBulletin Board; modem number (919)541-5742. The SAGE was established tobe used as an analytical tool to assistpersons with making an educateddecision on potential alternativesolvents based on their needs.Information accessible includes costs,potential secondary impacts, andrequirements for use. Informationincluded in SAGE is based on availablecase studies and is constantly evolving.

For further information regardingSAGE, contact Mr. Charles Darvin at(919) 541-7633, Air and EnergyEngineering Research Laboratory (MD-61), Office of Research andDevelopment, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Research TrianglePark, North Carolina 27711.

D. Regulatory AgendaAlthough no one is expected to switch

to alternative solvents as a direct resultof today's proposed standards, the EPArecognizes the industry trend to reduceor eliminate halogenated solventcleaning machines. Several ongoingAgency activities could potentially havean impact on owners or operators ofhalogenated solvent cleaning machineswho elect to switch to alternativecleaning techniques. The following is alist of current projects and contactnames; information on each of theseprograms is published twice a year inthe EPA Agenda.

(1) Metal Products and MachineryEffluent Guideline-The EPA iscurrently developing effluent standardsunder the Clean Water Act for thisindustry. Solvent cleaning operationsgenerating wastewater (e.g., aqueous orsemi-aqueous operations) will likely beincluded. For more information,contact: Bill Cleary of the U. S.Environmental Protection Agency'sOffice of Water at (202) 260-9817.

(2) Aerospace Industry NESHAP-TheEPA is currently developing emissionstandards under the Act for thisindustry. This standard will cover wipecleaning operations performed in theaerospace industry. For moreinformation, contact: Vicki Booth of theU. S. Environmental Protection Agencyat (919) 541-0164.

(3) Solvent Alternative Guide(SAGE--The EPA has developed SAGE,a computer program that providessuggestions for alternative industrialcleaning and degreasing technologies.Users of the program provideinformation regarding their surfacecleaning requirements and SAGEprovides cleaning options that cansatisfy those requirements. Optionsinclude aqueous and semiaqueoussystems, supercritical fluids systems,and low vapor pressure biodegradablecleaning systems. For more information,contact: Charles H. Darvin of the U. S,Environmental Protection Agency at(919) 541-7633.

V. Summary of Environmental, Energy,and Economic Impacts

A. Air

The proposed 'tandards would reducenationwide emissions of hazardous airpollutants from halogenated HAPsolvent cleaning machines by 80,400Mg/yr (88,440 tons per year), or 63percent in 1996 compared to theemissions that would result in theabsence of the proposed standards. Noadverse secondary air impacts areexpected from the implementation ofcontrol options.

B. Water and Solid Waste

There are no adverse water or solidwaste impacts anticipated from thepromulgation of these standards.However, the use of some halogenatedsolvents is expected to decline as aresult of the phaseout mandated by the1990 Amendments, the MontrealProtocol, and presidential order; andaqueous cleaners have been chosen bymany owners or operators as a cleaningalternative. These standards have thepotential to cause some owners oroperators to switch to aqueous cleanersor other alternative cleaningtechnologies; although, this effect isexpected to be minor compared to theother factors listed above. As discussedin section IV. C., sources contemplatingswitch-over to alternatives need tocarefully weigh the trade-offs before adecision is made as there may be trade-offs and cross-media (i.e., water) transferproblems. There is a potential impact onwater quality from the use of carbonadsorption from the regeneration of


carbon beds. The use of carbonadsorbers, however, is notrecommended under these proposedstandards. Carbon adsorbers are notexpected to be selected by owners oroperators to control halogenated HAPsolvent emissions because of theirexpense relative to other controloptions. The quantity of waste solventor carbon from existing carbonadsorption units disposed of ashazardous waste would not be affectedby the proposed standards.

C. Energy ImpactsThe anticipated energy impacts result

from increased electricity usage foradditional air pollution control devices,such as freeboard refrigeration devices,and automated partshandling systems.The national annual energy usage isexpected to increase from 57.2 millionkWH/yr to 117.1 million kWH/yr, whichis equivalent to approximately 32.5thousand barrels of oil.

D. Cost ImpactsThe implementation of this regulation

is expected to result in an overallannual national net savings of $30.4million. This includes a net annualizedsavings from installation of controldevices of $46.8 million and a totalmonitoring, reporting, andrecordkeeping cost of $16.5 million.These savings will come from thesignificant decrease in solventemissions and, therefore, solventconsumption, which outweigh theoverall cost of air pollution controlequipment and monitoring andrecordkeeping costs. The only solventcleaning machine subcategory thatwould incur an overall national cost isthe small cleaning machine. Thenational annual cost for small cleaningmachines is $6.3 million.

E. Economic ImpactsThe analysis attempted to compute

the impacts on the facilities with thehighest control costs. Those facilitieswere the small facilities, and thesefacilities were defined using thespecifications listed earlier for a smallmodel solvent cleaning machine.Monitoring, recordkeeping, andreporting costs were included with thecontrol costs as an input to theeconomic impact analysis. Economicimpacts were not computed for facilitieswith negative costs, which include allthe affected facilities except for smalland medium solvent cleaning machinesand new in-line solvent cleaningmachines. The methodology forcalculating economic impacts isdiscussed at length in the backgroundinformation package (see the

Background Information Documentssection near the beginning of thispreamble).

The economic impact analysis showsthat the economic impacts from thisproposed standard are insignificant.Since a majority of solvent cleaningfacilities that will be affected by thestandard will actually experiencenegative costs, the analysis calculatedimpacts only for those facilities that didnot experience negative costs. With thechosen alternatives, and under theassumption that facilities experiencingpositive costs cannot pass on anyincrease in costs from the standard toconsumers, the increase in total cost ofproduction for facilities in 39 SIC codesranges from 0.02 to 0.61 percent(existing cleaning machines), and 0.01to 0.58 percent (new cleaningmachines). The major reason for such.small increases in production cost is thesmall cost share that is attributable tosolvent cleaning machines uses. Thisshare ranges from 0.1 (SIC 376-GuidedMissiles, Space Vehicles, Parts) to 9.7percent-(SIC 359-Industrial Machinery,n.e.c. [not elsewhere classified]). Due tothe small increase in production cost,the impetus for facilities with positivecosts to switch to substitutes forhalogenated solvent cleaning operationsis minor as a result of this standardalone. There will also be minimal effectson the markets for the solventsthemselves.

VI. RationaleA. Selection of Pollutants and SourceCategories for Regulation1. Designated Pollutants

The source category for theseproposed standards are solvent cleaningmachines that use any of the listedhalogenated HAP solvents. During theNSPS and NESHAP development, theHAP studied included MC, PCE, andTCE. The "Alternative ControlTechnology Document-HalogenatedSolvent Cleaners" (EPA-450/3-89-030)also analyzed CFC-113, CT, C, andTCA. All of these solvents except forCFC-113 are HAP listed in the Act andare regulated under these proposedstandards. As discussed earlier, the useof TCA and CT is expected to declineas a result of the phaseout mandated bythe 1990 Amendments, the MontrealProtocol, and presidential order.However, since their use will extendsometime into the future, TCA and CTare included in proposed standards.

2. Halogenated Solvent CleaningMachines.

The halogenated solvent cleaningsource category does not constitute a

distinct industrial category, but is anintegral part of many major and minorindustries. The largest quantities ofhalogenated solvents used for cleaningmachines are in the following SICcodes.

1. SIC 25-Furniture and Fixtures;2. SIC 34-Fabricated Metal Products;3. SIC 36-Electric and Electronic

Equipment;4. SIC 37-Transportation Equipment;

and5. SIC 39-Miscellaneous

Manufacturing.Additional industries that use

halogenated solvents in cleaninginclude the following.

1. SIC 20-Food and Kindred Products;2. SIC 33-Primary Metals;3. SIC 35-Nonelectric Machinery; and4. SIC 38-Instruments and Clocks.Nonmanufacturing industries such as

railroad, bus, aircraft, and truckmaintenance facilities; automotive andelectric tool repair shops; automobiledealers; and service stations also usehalogenated solvent cleaning machines.

Batch and in-line cleaning machinesare subject to these proposed standards.Brief cleaning machine and processdescriptions for these cleaning machinetypes are discussed in the followingparagraphs. These process descriptionsare discussed at length in thebackground information package (seeBackground Information Documents).

3. Batch Vapor Cleaners.The most common type of batch vapor

cleaning machine is the OTVC;however, other (non-OTVC) batch vaporcleaning machines such as the cross-rodbatch vapor cleaning machine have beendeveloped to accommodate varyingindustrial cleaning demands.

The basic OTVC tank is designed togenerate and contain solvent vapor. Thetank is equipped with a heating systemthat uses steam, electricity, hot water, orheat pumps to boil liquid solvent. Asthe solvent boils, dense solvent vaporsrise and displace the air inside the tank.The solvent vapors rise to the level ofthe primary condensing coils. Coolant(e.g., water, refrigerant) is circulated orrecirculated through the condensingcoils to provide continuouscondensation of rising solvent vapors,thereby creating a controlled vapor zonethat prevents vapors from escaping thetank. Condensing coils are generallylocated around the inside walls of thecleaner, although in some equipmentthe primary coils are at one end or sideof the cleaner.

During the vapor cleaning machineoperation, solvent vapors condense onthe cooler workload entering the vapor

62573

62574 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 227 I Monday, November 29, 1993 / Proposed Rules

zone. Condensing solvent dissolvessome contaminants and flushes bothdissolved and undissolved soils fromthe workload. Condensed solvent anddissolved or entrained contaminantsthen drain back into the sump below.When the temperature of the workloadreaches that of the vapor, condensationceases and the vapor phase cleaningmachine process is complete. In someinstances, the vapor cleaning machinecycle is supplemented, or evenreplaced, by the immersion of the partinto the hot, liquid solvent.

There are numerous batch vaporcleaning machine process variations ofthe basic vapor cleaning cycle toaccommodate differing parts cleaningrequirements. Cleaning machinecleaning cycle variations include, butare not limited to, immersion-vapor-spray and vapor-spray-vapor cycles, andnonboiling solvent sections with vaporsections.

Parts are introduced into the cleaningmachine manually or with the use of anautomated parts handling system. Inmanual operations, the attendant lowersthe parts basket into the cleaningmachine and removes the basket oncethe cleaning has been completed. Anautomated parts handling systemreplaces manual operations anddecreases potential worker exposure toHAP.

Variations to the basic design includedual or multiple chamber units andultrasonics. Dual chamber unitstypically use one chamber for generatingthe solvent vapor, and the other forimmersion cleaning or sprayingapplications. Some units with multiplechambers include ultrasonics in one ofthe chambers. Ultrasonics incorporateshigh frequency sound waves to producepressure waves in the liquid solvent.Minute vapor pockets are formed inareas of low pressure within the liquid.These pockets collapse as the pressurein the zone cycles to high pressure. Theconstant creation and collapse of thesevapor pockets provides a scrubbingaction to aid cleaning.

Non-OTVC batch vapor cleaningmachines are hybrids of an OTVC andan in-line cleaning machine. Thesebatch vapor cleaning machines aregenerally larger and more enclosed thana typical OTVC and typically useconveyorized automated parts handlingsystems for moving parts through thecleaning cycle. For example, the cross-rod non-OTVC batch vapor cleaningmachine is an enclosed cleaningmachine that uses rods that suspendparts baskets as they are conveyedthrough the machine by a pair of power-driven chains.

Similar to OTVC batch vapor cleaningmachines, cleaning chambers cancontain halogenated solvent for vapor,spray, and immersion cleaning. Controlsfor OTVC's will be as effective, or moreeffective, on non-OTVC batch vaporcleaning machines as they areessentially more enclosed OTVC's.Therefore, analysis of the standardsbased on OTVC batch vapor cleaningmachines is reasonable andrepresentative.

4. Batch Cold Cleaning Machines

Batch cold cleaning machinestypically use nonhalogenated solvents.Carburetor cleaning machines were theonly batch cold cleaning machinesidentified that use halogenated solvents.In these cleaning machines, MC isblended with other solvents andadditives to reduce flammability andincrease dissolving power. Emissionsfrom these cleaning machines aretypically well controlled because thecleaning solution used contains water,which forms a water layer above thesolvent mixture in the tank. The bestknown control used for carburetorcleaning machines is the use of a coveron the tank and a water layer on thesolvent surface. These controlssignificantly reduce evaporation of MC.

Although in the past some other coldcleaning machines have been sold foruse with halogenated solvents, no othercold cleaning machines other thancarburetor cleaning machines wereidentified as using halogenated solventHAP.

5. In-line (Vapor and Cold) CleaningMachines.

In-line cleaning machines employautomated parts loading on acontinuous basis. In-line cleaningmachines can operate in the vapor ornonvapor phase; however, the majorityof in-line cleaning machines usinghalogenated solvents are vapor cleaningmachines. An in-line cleaning machineis usually individually designed for aspecific workload and production rate.In-line cleaning machines are generally.enclosed, except for parts and conveyorinlet and exit openings. The four maintypes of in-line cleaning machines usinghalogenated solvents are the monorail,belt, strip, and printed circuit boardprocessing equipment (photoresiststrippers, flux cleaners, and developers).

The same cleaning techniques areused in in-line cleaning machines aswith batch cleaning machines but aretypically larger scale operations thanwith batch units.

B. Selection of Emissions To Be Coveredby the Standards

Halogenated solvent cleaningmachines (batch and in-line cleaningmachines) are characterized by threeoperating modes. These operatingmodes are idling, working, anddowntime. Cold cleaners do not have anidling mode.

The three operating modes havecharacteristic emission mechanismsassociated with them. In addition,miscellaneous fugitive emissions fromseveral other loss mechanisms may alsooccur. Miscellaneous fugitive emissionsinclude those emissions that occur as aresult of leaks, filling/draining losses,wastewater losses, start-up/shutdownlosses (losses that occur when acleaning machine is turned on or off),distillation losses, and solventdecomposition losses.1. Idling Emissions.

Idling emissions are emissions thatoccur when the cleaning machine isturned on and ready to operate, but isnot actively processing parts. Air andsolvent vapor interface losses that occurduring the idling mode consist ofsolvent vapor diffusion (or evaporationfrom liquid solvent in a cold cleaningmachine) and solvent vapor convectioninduced by a warm freeboard.

Diffusion occurs because molecules ofsolvent move from higherconcentrations in the vapor zone tolower concentrations in the air. Becausemolecular activity increases at highertemperatures, diffusion rates aretemperature dependent. Idling diffusionemissions plateau when vapor and airsolvent concentrations reach a steadystate. Disturbance of this steady statewill result in an increase in emissionsdue to diffusion losses. The diffusionrate steady state can be disturbed if anair flow is introduced across the air andsolvent vapor interface as the result ofroom drafts or a lip exhaust.

Convection occurs from the tank wallsbeing heated from the heated liquidsolvent and resulting vapor. Theemissions occur as a result of theconvective flow up along the freeboardthat carries solvent vapor out of thecleaning machine. The amount ofconvective loss depends on how warmthe freeboard walls become. Adequatecooling of the walls by cooling coils canreduce convective losses. Because idlinglosses can be significant and controlsare available to reduce these emissions,idling losses will be controlled by theseproposed standards.

2. Working EmissionsWorking emissions are emissions that

occur when the cleaning machine is

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 227 I Monday, November 29, 1993 / Proposed Rules

turned on and operating (parts arecycling through the cleaning process).Working emission mechanisms forvapor cleaning machines are the same asfor idiing emissions with additionalemissions occurring from thedisturbance of the solvent and vapor airinterface caused by the introduction andextraction of parts being cleaned,cleaning process (e.g., spraying), theentrainment of solvent vapor on the partas a workload (parts being cleaned) ispulled out of the cleaning machine, andsolvent liquid dragout (solvent thatremains on the surfaces of clean partsafter the parts are removed from thecleaning machine). Working emissionsfrom cold cleaners (batch or in-line)include liquid dragout and cleaningprocess losses.

Halogenated solvent loss rates aretypically the largest during this mode ascompared with idling and downtimemodes. Because of the large emissionpotential, working emissions will becontrolled by these proposed standards.

3. Downtime Emissions

Downtime emissions are solventemissions that occur when the heat tothe sump (cleaning machine tank) is

turned off and the cleaning machine isnot operating. Downtime emissionmechanisms include evaporation ofsolvent from the liquid solvent surfaceand subsequent diffusion into theambient air. Halogenated solvent lossrates are typically the lowest during thismode as compared to idling andworking modes. Generally, theseemissions are minimized by the use ofa cover, which is required by thesestandards when the cleaning machine isin the downtime mode. Thisrequirement is considered to exist in thebaseline.4. Miscellaneous Fugitive Emissions

In addition to HAP halogenatedsolvent losses that occur when themachine is down, idling, or working,there are several other solvent lossmechanisms that contribute to overalllosses from a halogenated solventcleaning machine. These include fillingand draining losses as well as machinestart-up and shutdown losses. Workpractices are included in the proposedstandards to reduce these emissions.C. Emission Control Options

Halogenated solvent cleaningmachine emission control options

include those controls added to thecleaning machine and those that applyto the cleaning machine operatingpractices. Alternative cleaningtechnologies and some emerging newtechnologies may also be potentialoptions for the reduction of HAPhalogenated solvent cleaning machineemissions. This section focuses on batchvapor and in-line (cold and vaporcleaners). Controls for batch coldcleaners are discussed in section VI.A.4.

1. Solvent Cleaning Machine ControlTechnologies

Emission control technologies for thehalogenated solvent cleaning machineindustry are classified as idling and/orworking mode emission controls forboth batch vapor and in-line cleaningmachines. Table 3 presents the controlefficiencies for various solvent vaporemission control techniques for idlingand working modes. A description ofthese solvent vapor emission controls issummarized here. These emissioncontrol techniques are discussed at.length in the background informationdocument (see Background InformationDocuments).

TABLE 3.-SOLVENT VAPOR EMISSION CONTROL EFFICIENCIES FOR VARIOUS CONTROL TECHNIQUES

Control efficiency aCleaner Control technique percent

Idling Worldng

Batch vapor cleaner .............................................. Cover . .................................................................................................... 40 0Bi-Parting Cover ..................................................... ........................... 40 40FBR 0.75->1.0 ..................................................................................... 20 20FBR 1.0-> .25 ................................................................................. ; .... 10 10Freeboard refrigeration device ............................................................... 40 40Primary condenser temperature (30 to 40 percent of the solvent boil- 40 40

Ing point).Reduce wind speed 30.3 mrn/n (100 Wmin)->calm (15.2 m/rin [<50 50 50

ft/min]).Hoist .................................................................................................... 0 35Dwell ...... ................................ 0 30

In-line cleaners ................ . . . . . . Freeboard refrigeration device ............................................................... 60 60Carbon adsorption system ..................................................................... 60 60

a Control efficiency over a cal cleaner.Typical batch cleaner OT Cwith a 0.75 freeboard ratio, circumferential water-cooled primary condensing coils, a manual cover, and located In

a room with windspeeds In excess of 30.3 rVainn (100 It/min).Typical in-line cleaner (vapor and cold): A typical in-line cleaner has water-cooled condenser coils.

Covers are used on halogenatedsolvent cleaning machines to eliminatedrafts within the freeboard and toreduce diffusion losses. A bi-partingcover is a cover made to close aroundthe cables holding parts baskets whenthe basket is inside the cleaner. A bi-parting cover allows for completeenclosure during the cleaning phase.Covers can be manually operated, orelectronically powered.

. The freeboard height on a batch vaporcleaning machine is the distance fromthe solvent/vapor air interface to the topof the tank walls. The freeboard zoneserves to reduce solvent/vapor airinterface disturbances caused by roomdrafts and provides a column throughwhich diffusing solvent molecules mustmigrate before escaping into the ambientair. Higher freeboards reduce diffusionallosses by diminishing the effects of air

currents and lengthening the diffusioncolumn.

In all vapor cleaning machines,solvent vapor created within themachine is prevented from overflowingthrough use of primary condenser coils.Freeboard refrigeration devices are asecond set of cooling coils located abovethe primary condenser coils of thecleaning machine. Freeboardrefrigeration devices have proven to bean effective control for diffusion losses.

62575

62576 Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 227 / Monday, November 29, 1993 / Proposed Rules

Although a primary condenser isstandard equipment on all OTVC's, thecooling temperature and design of thecoils have an effect on idling losses. Alower cooling temperature, will lowerdiffusion losses. This is generallyachieved by the use of a refrigerantrather than water. '

Air movement over a batch vaporcleaning machine affects the solventemission rate by sweeping away solventvapors diffused into the freeboard areaand creates turbulence in the freeboardarea that increases solvent diffusion aswell as solvent vapor and air mixing. Byreducing the air speed over the cleaningmachine, there is a reduction in theseemissions.

The method employed for movingparts through the halogenated vaporcleaning machine cycle has a directeffect on the magnitude of workloadrelated emissions. Rapid movement ofparts will increase solvent loss due tocarry-out of liquid solvent andentrainment of solvent vapor, andincreased disturbance at the solvent/vapor air interface. Use of a mechanicalparts handling system (hoist) can reduceemissions by consistently moving partsinto and out of the machine atappropriate rates, such as 3.3 m/min (11ft/min), thereby eliminating excesslosses caused by manual operation.Manual operators can move parts atspeeds in excess of 24.2 m/min (80 ft/min).

Another advantage of mechanicalparts handling is the potential forprecise control of the dwell time (i.e.,the length of time the part remains inthe vapor zone). Proper dwell timedecreases emissions by ensuring that theparts have reached the solventtemperature prior to removal from themachine. If parts have not reached thesolvent vapor temperature,condensation would still occur as partsare withdrawn from the machine andsolvent carry-out losses would increase.

Carbon adsorption can be employedas a control technique in conjunctionwith a lip exhaust system. With thesesystems, peripheral exhaust ductscapture the diffusing solvent vapors andto some extent solvent evaporating fromclean parts and directs them through anactivated carbon bed. The solvent vapormolecules are adsorbed onto theactivated carbon, removing the solventfrom the vent stream before dischargingto the atmosphere. However, the use oflip exhausts increases overallconsumption and even when exhaustedvapors are controlled by a carbonadsorption unit, does not reduceemissions any more than the other,techniques discussed above. Therefore,use of lip exhausts, even those routed to

carbon adsorbers, is discouraged.Available anecdotal test data supportthe EPA's belief that lip exhausts are notrequired to meet OSHA limits. AttainingOSHA limits is generally the rationalebehind the use of a lip exhaust,however, OSHA does not require theiruse. Furthermore, there are increasedcross-media transfer problemsassociated with the use of carbonadsorption, including increased air,solid/hazardous waste and wastewaterimpacts.

Control efficiencies for the listedcontrol techniques were derived fromemission tests performed on idling andworking batch vapor and in-linecleaning machines. Data were availablefrom multiple tests of controltechniques on a wide variety of cleaningmachines. The EPA evaluated these dataand determined an overall averagecontrol efficiency for each controltechnique for the idling and workingmodes. These control efficienciesrepresent the average emissionreduction attained over a typicalcleaning machine. For purposes ofcalculating these efficiencies, a typicalbatch cleaning machine is an OTVChaving a 0.75 FBR, circumferentialwater-cooled primary condensing coils,a manual cover (used during downtime),and located in a room with windspeedsin excess of 30.3 m/min (100 ft/min). Itis assumed that no lip exhaust ispresent, unless already vented to acarbon adsorber. A typical in-line (vaporand cold) cleaning machine has water-cooled condenser coils.

It is believed that many of thesetechniques could also reduce downtimeemissions. However, insufficient datawere available to assign downtimecontrol efficiencies to the controltechniques. Therefore, a zero-percentcontrol efficiency of downtimeemissions was used in all analyses.

-Generally, multiple controltechniques are used in combination ona single cleaning machine. Whencontrols are used in combination, thereis an increase in the achievable controlefficiency. However, the efficiencies ofthe two controls added to one cleaningmachine are not additive. The netefficiency of two controls is less thanthe additive sum, because the secondcontrol is controlling only the emissionsnot already controlled by the firstcontrol (i.e., the controls are essentiallyacting in series). The formula fordetermining the net efficiency for twocontrols is as follows:Ffn=El - +E2 _ EIE2where:

EF,"net efficiency of the combinedcontrols:

E1=efficiency for control 1; andE2=efficiency for control 2.Similar equations for determining the

net efficiency of more than two controldevices were also developed.

Redundancy among options occurswhen control techniques control thesame emissions using similar principles.For example, freeboard refrigerationdevices and reduced primary condensertemperature controls both reducevaporization losses by cooling thefreeboard and have an associated 40percent control efficiency under idlingand working conditions. Tests havedemonstrated that limited-to-no benefitis obtained by having both techniquesemployed on the same unit. Similarly,an enclosed design is considered toexert equivalent control as a reducedroom draft and a cover; these controltechniques may also be consideredredundant.

2. Alternative Cleaning Technologies

Rather than reducing the emissions ofhalogenated solvents by controllinghalogenated solvent cleaning machines,it is possible in some instances toreplace halogenated solvent cleaningmachines or the solvent itself withalternative cleaning technologies.Alternative cleaning technologiesinclude the use of alternative solvents,alternative cleaning machines, and no-clean technologies. These proposedstandards allow use of these alternativesin place of a halogenated solventcleaning machine.

Alternative solvents are generallyclassified as hydrochlorofluorocarbons,aqueous, semi-aqueous, or organic.Alternative cleaning technologies orprocesses can also be used to replacecommon halogenated solvents. Many ofthese processes are still in thedevelopmental stages. These processesinclude: (1) Ice particles; (2) plasma; (3)pressurized gases; (4) supercriticalfluids; (5) ultraviolet/ozone; (6)mechanical; (7) thermal vacuumdeoiling; and (8) no-clean technologies.No-clean technologies include processmodifications that eliminate the needfor surface cleaning, including the useof low solids flux and controlledatmosphere soldering.

In developing the regulatory approachfor controlling this source category, therole of alternative cleaning agents andtechnologies was considered. However,the proposed NESHAP does notmandate a switch from halogenatedsolvents to an alternative solvent ortechnology for the following reasons:

1. Controls exist that can significantlyand efficiently reduce the emissions ofhalogenated solvents from solventcleaning machines. These controls can


reduce the emissions to a level morestringent than the MACT floor for theseunits.

2. Determination of an acceptablealternative cleaning technology is siteand application specific and can takeseveral years to develop. Not all of theapplications are known, and it isuncertain whether an acceptablealternative technology exists for everyapplication.

3. While HAP use could be eliminatedor reduced, discharges of otherpollutants, to wastewater or air could beincreased. Because the switch from ahalogenated solvent cleaning machinesystem to an alternative solvent systemis application specific, the relativeimpacts of making a total switch cannotbe confidently assessed.

The EPA has set up a solvent workgroup that has begun an investigation ofthe broader uses of alternative solventsand cleaning processes. This group willcontinue to address this issue aftertoday's proposal. The EPA plans.between proposal and promulgation, tomake a better assessment of thefeasibility of the use of these alternativetechnologies and their magnitude oftheir multi-media impacts.

Currently available informationconcerning alternative cleaning agentsand technologies is available for publicinspection and copying from the docket(A-92-39) containing supportinginformation used in developing theproposed standards. This information iscontained in a memo entitled "Status ofAlternative Solvents and Processes toHalogenated Solvent Cleaning." Thedocument number for this memo is II-B-14. The docket is available for publicinspection and copying between 8:30a.m and 3:30 p.m., Monday throughFriday. at the EPA's Air Docket, RoomM1500, U. S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, 401 M Street. SW, Washington,DC. A reasonable fee may be charged forcopyin.

As discussed in section II.C., a solventalternative guide has been developed bythe EPA's AEERL to assist users andState or local agencies in the case-by-case evaluation of alternative cleaningagents. The solvent alternative guide(called SAGE) is a computer on-lineanalytic tool that provides a facilitywith comprehensive information onsome potential solvent alternatives andtheir associated impacts based on theircleaning needs. This computer system isevolving as further information isobtained. Refer to section IV.C. forfurther information on accessing SAGE.

The EPA is aware that there may bespecific applications where thesealternative cleaning agents andtechnologies are viable alternatives. The

EPA requests comments andinformation on any known applicationof these agents or technologies andwhether they should be considered inthe MACT analysis. Informationsupplied needs to include specifics onapplicability, costs, and multi-mediaimpacts (i.e., air, water, soil).Information obtained will be consideredby the EPA in the final rulemaking. TheEPA may promulgate a rule that requiresthese technologies for specificapplications. .

3. New Technologies

Two new solvent cleaning machinetechnologies are currently beingdeveloped by industry. However, atpresent, these technologies are stillunder development and insufficientdata are available to include thesetechnologies in the MACT decision forthese proposed standards.

One such system controls the totalprocessing environment. Thisreportedly allows the use of manysolvent alternatives, includingcompounds that are vapors at roomtemperature, The system is a closedloop comprising a processing chambercapable of withstanding both fullvacuum and pressure, a gas liquidseparator, a compressor or blower, atemperature swing solvent stripper, agas accumulator, and a gas reheater. Thesystem also contains a vacuum pumpand a solvent recycle/supply system.This system is not expected to haveidling or downtime emissions becausethe closed loop remains isolated duringnonoperating periods.

The second technology is alsoapplicable to conventional cleaningmachine processes and can be retrofit toexisting OTVC's. Vendors report that theuse of solvents with boiling points aslow as 10 °C (50 OF) are expected to bepractical and cost effective. This systemisolates the solvent process from theenvironment to avoid solvent loss andworker exposure. This is accomplishedby the use of a lightweight perimeterenclosure to enclose the process, aclosed-loop temperature swing solventrecovery, a gas accumulator (toaccommodate fluctuations of vaporvolume and control pressure in theperimeter), and a vacuum air lock to getparts in and out. This system, as withthe first system discussed, is notexpected to have idling or downtimeemissions because the closed loopremains isolated during non-operatingperiods.

Because of the lack of data. anddevelopmental nature of thesetechnologies, they were not included inthe selection of MACT for theseproposed standards. These proposed

standards, however, would allow theuse of new and innovative technologieswhere they could be demonstrated to beequivalent to the control levels of theproposed NESHAP by complying withthe alternative emission limit.

The EPA is cu.rTently evaluatingenclosure technologies as describedabove at two facilities. The EPA isevaluating information on the solventsthat these systems are designed to use.products that the systems can clean.ability to retrofit existing cleaningsystems with the technology, andindustries that use these systems.

The EPA is requesting any commentsor information concerning newtechnologies that are feasible and can bejustified as the basis for the final rule.Information supplied needs to includespecifics on applicability, controlefficiency, costs, and multi-mediaimpacts (i.e., air, water, soil).Information obtained will be consideredby the EPA in the final'rulemaking. TheEPA may promulgate a rule that requiresthese technologies for specificapplications.

4. Fugitive Emission Controls

Fugitive emission control for thehalogenated solvent cleaner industryvary according to the fugitive lossmechanism. These emission controls arediscussed below.

Filling and draining losses occur fromopen handling procedures and areminimized by operating practices thatrequire that the transfer of HAP solventbe by the use of a threaded or otherleakproof coupling with the end of thepipe in the solvent sump being locatedbeneath the liquid solvent surface.

Wastewater losses occur when wateris decanted from the separatorcontaining a slight amount of solvent.These losses are considered to beminimal if a separator is correctlydesigned, operated, and maintained.Provisions for the proper maintenanceof the cleaner and controls are includedin these proposed standards.

Start-up and shutdown losses arelosses that occur during the transitiontime from when a solvent cleaningmachine is turned on or off to the timewhen equilibrium is achieved. Theselosses are controlled by some of thesame controls that control idling losses.For example, starting the condensercoolant prior to turning on the sumpheater is a start-up procedure thatfacilitates solvent condensation in thesaturated zone above the liquid solventbefore solvent vapors rise out of thecleaner.

Distillation losses are losses thatoccur when solvent is regeneratedthrough onsite distillation for reuse.

62577


Losses that occur due to distillation arefrom evaporation during transfer andfrom leaks in the equipment; therefore,transfer and operating leak anddetection provisions cover any lossesthat may occur from distillationprocesses.

Solvent decomposition losses resultfrom the solvent mixture turning acidicdue to reactions occurring with water.Emissions occur during handling anddisposal of the solvent. This solvent issubject to controls under RCRA thatserve to minimize losses by stringenthandling and disposal guidelines. Theseproposed standards do not interferewith RCRA's handling and disposalguidelines to minimize HAP emissions.

D. Development of RegulatoryAlternatives

With the exception of the batch coldcleaning machine subcategory, multipleregulatory alternatives were developedfor each of the solvent cleaning machinesource categories. The only batch coldcleaning machines that the EPAidentified that use a halogenated solventwere carburetor cleaners, which arecontrolled with a cover and a waterlayer in the absence of a regulation. Noadditional control techniques wereidentified that could further reduce theemissions from these cleaninginachines. The Administratordetermined that the cover and the waterlayer represent GACT. Therefore,today's proposed standards require theuse of a cover and a water layer on allbatch cold cleaners. Since the onlyidentified HAP cold cleaners usinghalogenated solvents are carburetorcleaners, the proposed standard will nothave an associated control cost and willnot result in an emission reductionbecause carburetor cleaning machinesalready incorporate the GACT level ofcontrol. Rather, the standard will ensurethat new batch cold cleaning machinesthat use halogenated solvents have theappropriate emission controls. In orderto ensure the proper operation ofexisting batch cold cleaning machines,the standard for cold cleaning machinesrequires that the cover and the waterlayer be in place whenever the batchcold cleaning machine is cleaning parts.

The only impact associated with theregulation of batch cold cleaningmachines is the reporting cost. Eachowner or operator of a batch coldcleaning machine is required to submita report stating that they have a batch'cold cleaning machine and arecomplying with the standard. Thisreport is discussed in more detail insection VI.I. The estimated respondentcost of 100,000 Initial notificationsaveraged over a 3-year period is $1.1

million. The estimated Federalgovernment cost for 100,000 initialnotifications averaged over a 3-yearperiod is $308 thousand.

The EPA solicits comments andsupporting data on the inclusion ofbatch cold cleaning machines in today'sproposal. Specifically, the EPA requestscomments on the reasonableness ofsetting GACT standards equal to thebaseline level of control, which achieveno HAP emission reduction. Also, theEPA requests data and comment on theexistence of other HAP batch coldcleaning machines and whether theproposed standards would bereasonable for those machines.

The regulatory alternatives developedfor the five remaining solvent cleaningmachine source subcategories arediscussed below.

1. Selection of MACT Floor

Emission standards for new andexisting sources promulgated undersection 112(d) of the Act must representthe maximum degree of reductionachievable; this is typically referred toas the MACT. The Act establishesminimum levels, or "floors," for MACTstandards. These floors are to bedetermined as follows:

(1) for new sources, the MACT floor cannotbe "less stringent than the emission controlthat is achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source * * *."

(2) for existing sources with more than 30sources, the MACT floor cannot be lessstringent than "the average emissionlimitation achieved by the best performing 12percent of the existing sources * * *."

The MACT floors for the halogenatedsolvent cleaning machine sourcesubcategories are based on controlefficiency and sales data obtained fromsection 114 questionnaires sent tosolvent cleaning machine vendors. Inthis section 114 questionnaires datawere gathered for cleaning machines ineach subcategory. These data areassumed to be representative of thecontrol levels achieved by the industryas a whole, and represent the bestinformation available to theAdministrator.

Using the control efficiencies for theindividual control devices, thecombined control efficiency formula,and the model cleaning machineoperating schedules, a control efficiencywas calculated for each reportedcleaning machine. The controlcombination efficiencies were roundedto the nearest 10 percent increment (i.e.,10 percent control, 20 percent control,etc.) due to data and precision. Thecombinations were then grouped bytheir combined control efficiencies. Allthe cleaning machines were grouped

based on control efficiencies and rankedfrom the highest control efficiencycombination to the lowest controlefficiency combination. The floor forexisting sources in each subcategorywas then determined by calculating theweighted-average level of control for thetop performing 12 percent. The MACTfloors, for batch vapor cleaning machineexisting sources are as follows: 10percent for small, 40 percent formedium, 40 percent for large, 60 percentfor very large. The MACT floor is 30percent for existing source in-linecleaners. The MACT floor for newsources in each subcategory wasdetermined by determining themaximum control level achieved(control level of the best-controlledexisting source) for each subcategory.The MACT floors for batch cleaningmachine new sources are as follows: 40percent for small, 50 percent formedium, 60 percent for large, 60 percentfor very large. The MACT floor is 40percent for new source in-line cleaningmachines.

2. Development of AdditionalRegulatory Alternatives

Regulatory alternatives weredeveloped for each of the five solventcleaning machine subcategories. Theleast stringent regulatory alternative thatwas examined in detail is the MACTfloor; therefore, the MACT floor isalways presented as the first alternative.To develop the regulatory alternatives,potential control levels for eachsubcategory were developed andanalyzed. First, all reasonable controlcombinations were evaluated for theiremission reduction potential for eachsubcategory, based on a typicaloperating schedule. Then the controlcombinations were grouped into controllevels, rounded to the nearest 10 percentincrement. Next, the capital costs wereevaluated and the median costcombination was determined for eachcontrol level. Median costs wereselected instead of average costs becausethe median costs have a particularcontrol combination associated witheach, whereas an average cost may notcorrespond to any of the availablecontrol combinations. Median costswere selected as opposed to the lowestcost combination because somecombinations may not be feasible for allcleaning machines. For eachsubcategory, the control combinationcost that represented the median capitalcost was chosen to represent the controllevel.

Once the median cost controlcombinations were selected, the costs ofeach control level were evaluated foreach subcategory. The total annual cost


for each control level was estfrom the annualized capital cannual operation costs; the imreporting and recordkeepingthe solvent cost savings realireduced solvent consumptionper unit of emissions reductieffectiveness, was then deter,each control level and inferiooptions were identified. Inferoptions are defined as thoselevels with higher costs thanlevels that achieve the same.emission reductions, The rernon-inferior control optionsthe set of regulatory alternatisubcategory. Both the existinnew small batch vapor cleanmachine control options at tifloor levels were identified aoptions; however, because thMACT floor, they are includfirst regulatory alternatives fsubcategory. Table 4 presentregulatory alternatives for easubcategory.

TABLE 4.-SOLVENTSOURCE SUBCTEGORLATORY ALTERNATIVES

Existing

Batch vaporcleaner:

Small ..........

Medium ........

Large .........

Very large .....

In-line ...........

1-10% (floor)

11-300/ ........111-50%/o...IV---60%1-40% (floor)

11-50% ........111--60%

1-40% (floor)11-70% ........1-60% (floor)

11-70% ........

I-30% .(floor)

11-50% ........

The control cost analysisregulatory alternatives indiclarge number of solvent cleafacilities will have negativemoving from the estimatedof control to meeting each nalternative. That is, the annof purchasing and operatingdevice is less than the cost srealized by the reduced solvThis savings implies that mhave had the possibility of rtheir costs but have not yettopportunity to do so in thethe standard. An importantany analysis of the impact o

imated proposed regulation is what portion ofosts, the the firms with this potential savingsonitoring, would realize the savings in the absencecosts, and of the proposed regulation and whatzed from portion would only realize the savingsi. The cost if forced to by the regulation. The mainon, or cost analysis assumes that none of the firmsmined for would undertake the control in ther control absence of regulation requiring control.rior control However, a sensitivity analysiscontrol addresses the implications if the firmsother with the greatest cost savings undertakeor greater the control even in the absence ofnaining regulation.made up This sensitivity analysis uses aves for each criterion of a savings of $25,000 in NPVig Rnd the above all costs of the purchase, 'ing operation, and maintenance of thehe MACT emissions control equipment. Thes inferior sensitivity analysis thus assumes that atey are the net savings of $25,000 or more willed as the assure that the firm will undertake theor this control. For these firms the sensitivitys the analysis does not attribute any emissionch reduction or cost to the regulation

because it assumes the control would beundertaken whether or not there is a

CLEANER regulation. The criterion of $25,000, wasIY REGU- chosen for it was a midpoint between

the smallest capital investment($11,200) and the largest capital

New investment ($38,100) necessary tocomply with the standard. Thus, if asolvent cleaning machine operator

1-40% would experience a return on(floor), investment of at least $25,000 in NPV

l1--50% from installing emissions control1I---60% equipment, the operator would do so in

the absence of the standard, and vice1-50% versa. Regardless of whether this

(floor), investment is required by regulation, the11-600/ level of emission reduction is the sam6,

I-60 (floor). since solvent cleaning machine11--70% operators choosing to invest in controll-600/ equipment in the absence of a standard

(floor). will control emissions by the levels the11-70% standard requires, This sensitivity1--40% analysis did allow analysis of the

(floor). impact on incremental cost effectiveness11-50% and benefit cost analysis of varying111-70% assumptions concerning this baseline

control issue. There is no markedfor the change in the values obtained for.ates that a incremental cost effectiveness or benefitaning cost analysis. Therefore, the uncertaintycosts for concerning the baseline level of controlcurrent level does not change the relativeegulatory attractiveness or the selection ofualized cost regulatory alternatives. Becausethe control reducing this uncertainty would be both

savings quite difficult and not helpful in makingvent costs. the selection among the regulatoryany facilities alternatives, further analysis beyond theeducing sensitivity analysis was not needed.taken the More information on the baselineabsence of investment criterion is available in thequestion for background information document (see.f the the Background Information Documents

section near the beginning of thispreamble).

3. Evaluation of National CostsAfter the regulatory alternatives were

determined, the national costs wereestimated. Information on the locationand number of batch and in-linecleaning machines in the United Statesis difficult to obtain because of the largenumber of solvent cleaning machinesexisting within many differentindustries. Therefore, a method toestimate the nationwide number ofsolvent cleaning machines wasdeveloped using available data such asnationwide solvent consumption andaverage cleaning machine emissionrates. In general, the numbers ofcleaning machines were estimated basedon the quantity of solvent consumed atthe national level, assumptions on thebreakdown of the national cleaningmachine population (i.e., sizes andpercentage of controlled cleaners), andtypical solvent consumption rates foreach size and control combination. Thepopulation of halogenated solvent batchvapor and in-line cleaning machineswas estimated to be 24,500.

Assuming an average 15-year lifespanfor a solvent cleaning machine and thatthe number of cleaning machines willremain constant from 1993 to 1996, itwas determined that in 1996 (first yearof compliance), the cleaning machinepopulation will be 20 percent newcleaning machines (4,900) and 80percent existing cleaning machines(19,600).

Based on the responses to section 114surveys, the distribution of cleaningmachines among the different controllevels (i.e., 10 percent, 20 percent, etc.)was determined for all cleaningmachines sold in the last 10-year period.This distribution was used as thecontrol efficiency distribution forexisting cleaning machines. The controlefficiency distribution of those cleaninFmachines sold in 1990 was used as thecontrol efficiency distribution for newcleaning machines.

The national cost for cleaningmachines to achieve a particularregulatory alternative comprised thesum of the capital; and monitoring,reporting and recordkeeping costs for allcleaning machines to move from theircurrent levels of control to theregulatory alternative level, If a cleaningmachine was at or above a regulatoryalternative level, that cleaning machineincurred no capital costs; but did incurmonitoring, reporting andrecordkeeping costs. The correspondingtotal emission reductions were alsoestimated and, with the total nationalcosts, used to calculate the average cost

I I J l

62579

62580 Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 227 / Monday, November 29, 1993 t Proposed Rules

effectiveness for each regulatory to the next regulatory alternative was the average and incremental costalternative. Then the incremental cost of determined. Table 5 presents the effectiveness values for the regulatorymoving from one regulatory alternative national costs, emission reductions, and alternatives with a cost credit for

reductions in solvent usage.

TABLE 5 -NATIONAL COSTS AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR SOLVENT CLEANERS-WITH SOLVENT RECOVERY CREDITS

Regulatory HAP emis- Average IncrementalCleaner size alternative Net annualized reduc- ost effec- cost effec-

(percent) cost ($Iyr) tion (MG) tiveness ($ tiveness ($tMG) MG)

Existing:Small ............................. .................. 1-10 2,563,000 300 8,540 .........

11-30 1,904,000 1,200 1,590 (730)Il-so 4.073,000 2,100 1,940 2,410IV-60 5,202,000 2,500 2,080 2,820

Mediun ..................................... ......... 1-40 3,214,000 2,900 1,110 ....................11-50 2,123,000 3,900 640 (1,090)

11-60 3,238,000 4,900 660 1,120Large .................... .......................... 1-40 (2,428,000) 4,300 (560) ..............

11-70 (4,560,000 10,700 (430) (330)V. Large ........................................... 1-60 (8,664,000). 10,100 (860) ................

11-70 (10,623,000) 14,200 (750) (480)In-Line .............. t.................... 1-30 (16,210,000) 14,600 (1,110) ..........

11-50 (23,218,000) 29,100 (800) (480)New:

Small...... ............................ 1-40 965,000 400 2,410 ...............11-50 836,000 500 1,670 (1,290)11-60 1,119,000 600 t,870 2,830

Medium ................................................................................... .1-50 384,000 700 550 ..........11-60 663,000 1,000 660 930

Large ............................. ....... ................ ........................ 1-60 (711,000) 1,900 (370) .........11-70 (1,010,000) 2,400 (420) - 00

V. Large ........... .................... ............. 0....... ............. 1-6 (2,410,090) 2,700 (890) ..........11-70 (2,900,000) 3,800 (760) (450)

In-Line .................................................................................... 1-40 (4,304,000) 5,500 (780) ....................11-50 (6,484,000) 7,400 (880) (1,150)11-70 123,000 11,200 10 1,740

= Regulatory alternative I is MACT floor. 0 = Negative values are shown in parentheses.

The costs in table 5 include a costcredit for reductions in solvent usagethat result from increased emissioncontrol. Table 6 presents national costs,emission reductions, and the averageand Incremental cost effectiveness forthe regulatory alternatives without a

cost credit for reductions in solventusage. The EPA solicits comments onoperating experience from users ofsolvent cleaning machines concerningwhether it is appropriate to include acredit for solvent not consumed whencalculating the costs and cost

effectiveness of the regulatoryalternatives. For the remainder of thispreamble, the cost effectiveness valuesfrom table 5 are presented, whichinclude credits for the reduction insolvent usage.

TABLE 6.--NATIONAL COSTS AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR SOLVENT CLEANERS-WITHOUT SOLVENT RECOVERYCREDITS

Cleaner size

Existing:Small ........................................

Medium ..................................... . . . .............

Large .................................................................................

V. Large ........................................

In-Line ...................... ...... ......................................

Smel ............................ . . . . . . . . ..........

Regulatoryalternative*(percent)

Net annualizedcost ($/yr)

I I I.-

1-1011-301 -50

IV-601-40

11-60

111-60"1-40

W-70

11-70-30

1--40

3,043,0003,557,0006,950,0008.668,0007,242,0007,494,0009,979,0003,583,000

10,294,0005,416,0009,154,0003,743,000

16,485,000

1,467,000

HAP emis-sion reduc-tion (MG)

Averagecost effec-tiveness ($/

MG)

10,1402,9603,3103,4702,5001,9202,040

830960540640260570

3,670

Incrementalcost effec-tiveness (S/

MG)

57O3,7704,300

2502,490

t,050

910

880

3001,2002,1002,50021003,9004,9004,300

10,70010,10014,20014,0020.100

400


TABLE 6.-NATIONAL COSTS AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR SOLVENT CLEANERS-WITHOUT SOLVENT RECOVERYCREDITS--Continued

Reguatory HAP emis- Average IncrementalCleaner size alternative* Net annualized HAP reduc- cost effec- cost effec-

aercnt cost ($/yr) (ion (MG) tiveness ($/ tiveness ($t(rntnMMG) MG)

11-50 1,496,000 500 2,990 290111-60 1,927,000 600 3,210 4,310

M edium .................................................................................... 1-50 1,407,000 700 2,01011-60 2,029,000 1,000 2,030 2,070

Large ............................................................................. 1-60 1,925,000 1.900 1,01011-70 2,377,000 2,400 990 900

V. Large .................................................................................... 1-60 1,393,000 2,700 52011-70 2,329,000 3,800 610 850

In-Line ............................................................................. 1-40 3,240,000 5,500 59011-50 3,655,000 7,400 490 220

_ 111-70 15,409,000 11,200 1,380 3,090

* = Regulatory alternative I is MACT floor.

4. Benefits Analysis

A benefit analysis was undertaken toexamine and illustrate the value ofrequiring control approaches morestringent than the MACT floor level.The analysis was not conducted onevery affected solvent cleaning machine.The analysis started with a riskcharacterization study on two modelsolvent cleaning machines, one smalland one medium, that were placed inthe center of three large cities indifferent areas of the United States(Detroit, Atlanta, and New York City).Estimates of the total number of peopleexposed, potential risk to the mostexposed, and potential number ofcancer cases per year were generated.Applying the regulation to the modelcleaning machines yielded emissionsreductions, and the monetary benefitsfrom the reductions were thencalculated on a per Mg (ton) basis. Itshould be noted that this analysisassumes that the model plantconfigurations are representative ofsolvent cleaning machines in the nationand the population density of the threemodelled cities is representative of thenation as a whole.

To complete the analysis required twostages: the first, valuing the reduction inannual cancer mortality risk; thesecond, valuing the reduction in non-cancer effects. Results from the firststage showed monetary benefits (allcomputed in 1990 dollars) ranging from$181 to $964 per Mg ($164.54 to $876.36per ton). For the second stage, theimplicit per Mg (ton) value needed toequate incremental costs and benefitswas calculated. This showed thatimplicit benefits after removing creditfor reducing cancer incidence for VOCper Mg (ton) must be in the range from$0 to $559 per Mg ($0 to $508.18 perton) for new medium solvent cleaningmachines, and $1,866 to $2,649 per Mg

($1,696.36 to $2,408.18 per ton) forexisting and new small solvent cleaningmachines. Ranges were computed basedon the level of credit for reduction incancer mortality risk. Methods to fullyquantify the non-cancer human healthand the ecological benefits of reducedexposures to these chemicals arecomplex, and in some cases,controversial.

Assuming a policy-based VOCreduction decision criterion of $2,000/Mg ($1,818.18 per ton), the benefitsanalysis supports emissions control atthe selected regulatory alternativesunambiguously except for the smallsolvent cleaning machines and the newin-line solvent cleaning machines. The$2,000/Mg ($1,818.18 per ton) of VOCreduction decision criterion that hasbeen used as a value for decision-making lies within the upper end of therange for these two solvent cleaningmachine types. For these machines, thebenefits analysis is not definitive,neither clearly supporting or refuting.the proposed levels of control by thebenefit/cost criterion. Furtherinformation is available in a backgroundinformation document (see theBackground Information Documentssection near the beginning of thispreamble).

E. Selection of Maximum AchievableControl Technologies

When establishing standards undersection 112(d) of the Act, theAdministrator must establish limits thatreflect the maximum achievableemission reduction, or MACT. However,for area sources, section 112(d)(5) statesthat "the Administrator may * * * electto promulgate standards or requirements* * * which provide for the use ofgenerally available control technologiesor management practices." This istypically referred to as GACT. Since

these standards include area sources, anevaluation of the appropriate regulatoryapproach for area sources was needed.

The use of GACT as opposed toMACT for area sources is not requiredby the Act. A GACT approach might bewarranted if significant adverseeconomic impact is expected on smallsources. This might especially be thecase where the small sources are alsosmall businesses that could not affordthe capital expenditure associated withmeeting MACT. There could also besome concern that appropriately trainedindividuals would not be available tooperate sophisticated controls. A GACTapproach may also be warranted if thereis a technological limitation to installinga control device on smaller emissionsources.

In this source category, no reason thatwould lead to using a GACT approachfor batch vapor and in-line cleaningmachines is known to exist. Although anumber of cleaning machines areexpected to be located at smallbusinesses, the use and operation ofthese cleaners do not represent asignificant portion of their business.Batch vapor and in-line solvent cleaningoperations typically represent only asmall portion of the total operatingexpenses of a source; generally rangingfrom 0.1 to 9.7 percent. Therefore, anyimpact from the standards would not belikely to have a significant impact onthe overall facility.

There is no technological barrier tothe use of controls on smaller sources.When developing the standards for thissource category, the determination ofMACT was made for multiple cleaningmachine size ranges. The levels selectedare above the MACT floor and areequivalent to the levels that would havebeen established if a GACT approachwere used.

62581


While the technologicalsophistication of controls may increaseas the level of control increases, properoperation is still relatively simple.Normal training procedures that wouldbe present at any facility to ensureproper use of the cleaning machinewould typically be sufficient to ensureproper control device operation. Someof the control devices are less prevalenton the smaller size cleaning machines;however, there is no technologicalreason why the controls cannot beapplied to these units.

Since there are no significanteconomic, technological, or feasibilityissues that would warrant selecting aGACT approach for batch vapor and in-line cleaning machine area sources inthis industry, MACT is warranted forthe batch vapor and in-line cleaningmachines subcategories. This proposedstandard is based on MACT controlapplied to all batch vapor and in-linecleaning machines and GACT controlapplied to all batch cold cleaningmachines.

Requiring area sources to meet MACTas opposed to GACT means that thesection 112() requirement, that EPAconduct a residual risk analysis 8 yearsafter promulgation of the MACTstandard, will apply to those sources.The EPA requests comment on whetherthis residual risk requirement should bea factor to be weighed in determiningwhether MAC or GACT should applyto a category or subcategory of areasources. For example, in the presentcase, where MACT and GACT wouldrequire the same level of control, is itpermissible to call the standard GACTfor area sources in order to exempt thosesources from therequirements of 112(f)?

1. Evaluation of Regulatory AlternativesThe EPA has chosen the most

stringent regulatory alternative for eachsolvent cleaning machine sourcesubcategory for both existing and newcleaning machines, consideringemission reduction, cost, economic, andother environmental impacts. As shownintable 5, the incremental costeffectiveness of moving from the nextmost stringent to the most stringentregulatory alternative for thesesubcategories ranged from anincremental cost-effectiveness savings of$600/Mg ($550 per ton) to a incrementalcost effectiveness of $2,830/Mg ($2,570per ton) of HAP emission reduction. Noadverse economic or otherenvironmental impacts are expected forany of the alternatives presented. Batchcold cleaning machines are not includedin this table, but are proposed to beregulated under GACT, as discussed insection VI.D.

The analysis for existing and newsmall and medium batch vapor cleaningmachines and new in-line cleaningmachines revealed incremental cost-effectiveness estimates ranging from$1,120/Mg to $2,830/Mg associated withadopting the most stringent regulatoryalternatives. For large and very largebatch vapor cleaning machines, andexisting in-line cleaning machines therewere incremental cost savings for themost stringent regulatory alternative.Cost savings occur because the controltechniques reduce solvent emissionsfrom cleaning machines, therebyreducing the amount of new solvent thatmust be purchased. The savings insolvent purchase costs outweigh thecost of installing and operating thecontrols. In light of these incrementalcost effectiveness estimates and becauseno adverse economic or environmentalimpacts are expected, the most stringentalternatives for the batch vapor and in-line cleaning machine sourcesubcategories are selected as MACT.

The EPA requests comments on it'sestimates of the cost, emission reductionbenefits, and recovery credits, andsolicits comments on theappropriateness of selecting the moststringent alternative for each of thesubcategories (particularly for the smalland medium subcategories).

Table 7 presents a summary of theMACT standards for existing and newsolvent batch vapor and in-line cleaningmachine source subcategories coveredby these standards. The proposedstandards are based on the EPA'sevaluation of all data currentlyavailable. The EPA invites comment onall the regulatory alternatives presentedin this preamble, ranging from the floorto the alternative technologies discussedin section VI.C. Before promulgating afinal rule, the EPA will evaluate alladditional information and datasubmitted. Based on this evaluation, thepromulgated standards could be set atthe MACT floor level, or at the level ofany of the other regulatory alternativespresented in this preamble, but will notbe less stringent than the floor. The EPAcould also establish MACT based on thealternative technologies discussed insection VI.C.

TABLE 7.-SOLVENT CLEANERSOURCE SUBCATEGORY SELECTEDREGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

Existing New (per-(percent) cent)

Batch vapor:Small .....................Medium .................Large .....................

IV--60Il--6011,-70

111--6011-601-70

TABLE 7.-SOLVENT CLEANERSOURCE SUBCATEGORY SELECTEDREGULATORY ALTERNATIVES-Con-tinued

Existing I New (per-(percent)I cent)

Very large ............. 11-70 11-70In-line ........................ 11- 50 111-70

F. Selection of Form at for the ProposedStandards

Section 112(d) of the Act requires thatemission standards for control of HAPbe prescribed unless, in the judgment ofthe Administrator, it is not feasible toprescribe or enforce emission standards.Section 112(h) identifies two conditionsunder which it is not consideredfeasible to prescribe or enforce emissionstandards. These conditions include: (1)If the HAP cannot be emitted through aconveyance device, or (2) if theapplication of measurementmethodology to a particular class ofsources is not practicable due totechnological or economic limitations. Ifemission standards are not feasible toprescribe or enforce, then theAdministrator may instead promulgateequipment, work practice, design oroperational standards, or a combinationthereof.

Multiple approaches for regulating thehalogenated solvent batch vaporcleaning and in-line sourcesubcategories are being proposed. Theformats include equipment standards(i.e., control technique requirements)coupled with work practices; idlingemission limit standards coupled withequipment standards (i.e., use of a hoist)and work practices; and an alternativeoverall solvent emission limit standard.The owner or operator of a batch vaporor in-line cleaning machine wouldselect one of these complianceapproaches.

Multiple compliance alternativeoptions are being proposed for batchvapor and in-line cleaning machines toallow these cleaning machine owners oroperators flexibility. It was determinedthat a combination of standard formatsbest met the halogenated solvent batchvapor and in-line cleaning machinesubcategories' compliance needsbecause of the vast number of differentindustries and operating schedulesassociated with the use of thesecleaners.

An emission limit standard wasconsidered initially, as required by theAct Solvents are not generally emittedthrough a conveyance device. The onlyexception is when a lip exhaust is usedat the edge of the cleaning machine todraw vapors away from the workers,


However, available informationindicates that these devices increaselosses from the machine unlesscontrolled by a carbon adsorber. Carbonadsorbers are not a component of theregulatory alternatives selected asMACT. In addition, emissions fromsolvent cleaning machines aredependent on the working schedule,which varies widely within and acrosssolvent cleaning subcategories. Since noconveyance device is used, andemissions are variable, establishing anemission standard for all solventcleaning machines was nottechnologically possible. However,emission standards were used to theextent possible in these standards.

An emission limit based on a limitedworking schedule was established as analternate standard for solvent batchvapor and in-line cleaning machines.This limit represents, at a minimum, theMACT level of control. For somecleaning machines the alternativeemission limit could be more stringentthan MACT. In particular, it is expectedthat this alternate standard will be moredifficult to meet for larger machines andmachines operating for more than oneshift or that clean parts with difficultconfigurations. It was not possible toaccount for these variables whenestablishing alternative emission limitswithout making the alternative standardunenforceable or overburdensome.Sources meeting the alternative -emission limits proposed today aresubject to less burdensome monitoring,recordkeeping, and reportingrequirements than sources meeting theother combinations of idling emissionlimits and equipment and work practicestandards. The reduced burden providesan incentive for innovative emissionscontrol strategies to limit solvent use.

An idling emission standard was thenevaluated. An idling emission standardwould allow a numerical standard to beset without considering workload andoperating schedules of the solventcleaning subcategories. However,maintaining an idling emission limitdoes not ensure maximum emissionreductions at all times. Therefore, workpractices and equipment standards (i.e.,use of a hoist) were established as partof this compliance alternative. Theidling emission limit compliancealternative may be economicallyimpracticable for some owners andoperators. A compliance test wouldneed to be performed for each cleaningmachine if vendors do not supply modelcleaning machine test data indicatingidling emission limit compliance.Therefore, the EPA concluded thatestablishing an idling emission limit forall sources would not be practicable.

However, an idling emission limit wasdeveloped as an alternative compliancemethodbecause it allows for thedevelopment and use of new emissioncontrol techniques.

An emission reduction (percent)standard was also evaluated for thehalogenated solvent batch vapor and in-line cleaning machine sourcesubcategories. It was determined thatthis format was not feasible orpracticable for halogenated solventcleaning operations because the percentemission reduction from a cleaningmachine would depend on thepercentage of time working. Apercentage emission reduction standardwould be economically impracticable todetermine because the percentage oftime working varies within and acrosssolvent cleaning operations. It wouldalso be technologically impracticable tomeasure a percent emission reductionfor the halogenated solvent cleaningsource category as most controltechniques for solvent cleaningmachines prevent emissions fromleaving the machine and therefore donot allow for simultaneousmeasurement of uncontrolled andcontrolled emissions.

Use of an equipment standard, inconjunction with work practices, wasthen evaluated for the halogenatedsolvent batch vapor and in-line cleaningsource subcategories. An equipmentstandard would include requirementsfor control techniques or combinationsof control techniques to meet MACT.This would be used in conjunction withwork practice requirements to ensureMACT limits are met. The equipmentstandard compliance format allows anowner or operator flexibility in meetingthe established MACT limits, andallows use of existing control devices anowner or operator may have in place.The equipment standard complianceformat also allows for compliancewithout meeting a specified emissionlimit that may not be feasible tomeasure, or achievable to meet becauseof varying opirating schedules.

Equipment standards weredetermined for the batch vapor and in-line halogenated solvent cleaningsubcategories based on controlefficiencies estimated for a "typical"operating schedule, and controlefficiencies for individual controlsbased on tests. Work practice standardswere established as a supplement toequipment standards to ensure that thedesired emission reductions are met andmaintained.

Work practice standards includeproper operating and maintenancepractices, and are proposed to minimizesolvent emissions from poor operating

and maintenance practices. Workpractice standards would includereducing or preventing room drafts nearthe solvent cleaning machine, spraydesign and techniques, start-up andshutdown procedures, workloadintroduction and removal techniques,parts racking to facilitate drainage,solvent transfer practices, and operatorqualification test requirements.

In summary, equipment and workpractice standards are used as the basisof today's proposed standards. Underthis format, a facility is required tomonitor equipment control parametersand work practices to ensurecompliance. Two additional complianceformat alternatives are included: (1) Anidling emissions limit, plus the use of ahoist and work practices, and (2) anemission limit standard. These formatalternatives are proposed as alternativecompliance methods for operator orowner flexibility.

The idling compliance emission levelfor the emission limit approach was setbased on the solvent air interface (kgemissions per m2 solvent air interfaceIlb emissions per ft2 solvent airinterface]) and on a 2-hour a dayworking schedule for batch cleaningmachines and an 8-hour a day workingschedule for in-line cleaning machines.The batch vapor cleaning machineworking schedule is considered to beslightly more than "typical" for smalland medium batch vapor cleaningmachines, and less than "typical" forlarge and very large batch vaporcleaning machines.

The overall compliance emissionlevels for the batch vapor and in-linecleaning machine subcategories weredetermined by taking the idlingemission rates for an uncontrolledcleaning machine and applying themaximum idling emission reductioncomponent identified for the selectedregulatory alternative control levels toget an idling emission standard.

The proposed batch cold cleaningmachine source subcategory regulatoryformat approach consists of anequipment standard coupled with workpractices. The owner or operator of abatch cold cleaning machine wouldfollow the equipment standard andwork practices in order to comply withthe regulation.

G. Modification and ReconstructionConsiderations

Section 112(g) of the Act establishesrequirements for sources that aremodified or reconstructed. Provisionsfor modifications and reconstructionspre being developed under separaterulemakings, and will be applicable to

62583


all halogenated HAP sources subject totoday's proposed regulations.

H. Selection of Monitoring RequirementsSection 114(a)(3) requires enhanced

monitoring and compliance certificationof all major stationary sources. Theannual compliance certifications certifywhether or not compliance has beencontinuous or intermittent. Enhancedmonitoring shall,be capable of detectingdeviations from each applicableemission limitation or other standardwith sufficient reliability and timelinessto determine continuous complianceover the applicable reporting period.Such monitoring data will be directlyenforceable. If monitoring requiredunder these standards is not performedthe owner or operator would be inviolation of the regulation. The best wayto assure continuous compliance isthrough continuous emissionmonitoring. However, EPA mustconsider technical feasibility and costwhen selecting enhanced monitoringsystems. Section 504(b) states thatcontinuous emission monitoring is notrequired for determining compliance ifother means are sufficiently reliable andtimely. Emission monitoring wasconsidered for the emission limitportions of the standards. Continuousemissions monitoring was determinednot to be feasible for the halogenatedsolvent cleaner source category becauseemissions are not ducted through acontrol device under .these proposedstandards and are not measured in amanner that allows for continuousemissions monitoring.

The batch cold cleaning machinesubcategory is a subcategory of areasources. The machines in thissubcategory are typically located atsmall businesses, such as automotiveservice stations. The emissions fromindividual cleaning machines are smalland the controls required for thissubcategory are already in place on allcleaning machines. Proper operation isrelatively simple. In addition, if notproperly operated, the facility wouldlose additional solvent. Since operationis relatively simple and there is aneconomic incentive to maintain properoperation, no periodic monitoring isproposed. Even though no monitoring isrequired, the owner or operator wouldbe required to continuously meet thestandards. Violations would be easilydetected through random inspections.

Owners or operators choosing tocomply with the alternative emissionlimit standards would be required toconduct monthly solvent consumptionmass balance emissions estimates. Thismethod would require the owner oroperator to maintain a log of solvent

additions and deletions for each cleanerand demonstrate that the emissionsbased on a 3-month rolling average,from each solvent cleaning machine(calculated from these records) are equalto or less than the established limits fortheir cleaner. If the 3-month rolling-average emissions from a solventcleaning machine exceeds theestablished limits, or monitoring is notdone, the owner or operator would be inviolation of the regulation.

For owners or operators complyingwith the alternative idling emissionstandards in conjunction with the use ofa hoist and work practices, the selectedmonitoring approach would require thatthe idling reference test method 307,also being proposed today, be used todemonstrate compliance with the idlinglimit and establish the monitoringparameters for the solvent cleaningmachine. Method 307 uses a liquid levelprocedure, where the change in liquidlevel corresponds directly to the amountof solvent lost from the cleaner. Theemissions compliance parameters to bemonitored are determined by this test.The owner or operator would need todemonstrate that the frequency andtypes of parameters monitored on thesolvent cleaning machine weresufficient to demonstrate continuedcompliance with the idling standard. Aowner or operator that fails to monitorcontrol parameters or does not maintainthe same control system operatingparameters as during the test is inviolation of the regulation.

The proposed standards includeequipment standards that require use ofspecific control techniques or controltechnique combinations. In order toensure that the control efficiency levelis maintained, monitoring requirementsare required. Monitoring each controlsystem operating parameter would benecessary to ensure effective andcontinuous emission reduction.

Control system monitoring entails themeasurement or monitoring of aparameter that is determined todemonstrate compliance. Monitoring ofcontrol system operating parameters canentail visual inspection or control-specific measurement devices.

Monthly visual inspection monitoringwould be required for automated ormanual covers to ensure that coverscompletely cover the machine opening,are in place, secure, and closingproperly.

monitoring requirements for each

control device that are necessary toensure proper operation weredetermined. These monitoringrequirements would include the use ofa velometer to measure windspeedacross a solvent cleaner for reduced

room draft, and a thermometer orthermocouple to measure the center ofthe air blanket temperature for afreeboard refrigeration device or super-heated vapor system. These controlparameters would be monitored weeklyunder these proposed standards. Failureto monitor control system operatingparameters, or to maintain controlsystem parameters as required, wouldbe a violation of the regulation.

Proposed work practice standardshave been set to minimize emissionsassociated with operating solventcleaners. Direct monitoring of workpractice standard compliance would be.difficult. It was determined that anoperator qualification test would be thebest work practice monitoringtechnique. This test would becompleted by an operator duringinspection, if requested by theAdministrator. The operatorqualification test would include, butmay not be limited to, the followinginformation.

1. The correct way to determine theadequate cycle time;

2. How to determine if a specificcontrol device is functioning;

3. The correct part entry and exitspeed and a method for calculating thisspeed:

4. The proper use of a cover;5. The impacts of room drafts on a

cleaning machine and how to mitigatethe impacts;

6. The proper parts orientation; and7. The asic cleaning machine parts

and their functions.8. The procedures followed at

halogenated solvent cleaning machinestartup, shutdown, and duringhalogenated solvent cleaning machinemalfunction.

L Selection of Recordkeeping andReporting Requirements

Under section 114(a) of the Act, theAdministrator may require any personwho owns or operates any emissionsource, who the Administrator believesmay have information subject to anyrequirement of this Act on a one-time,periodic, or continuous basis, establishand maintain records; make reports; useand maintain monitoring equipment;and use such audit procedures, ormethods; and provide such otherinformation as the Administrator mayreasonably require.

Owners of machines in the batch coldcleaning machine subcategory aretypically small businesses, such as anautomotive service station. As discussedin section VI.H., no monitoring isrequired for these sources. In order toeliminate unnecessary burden, thesesources are required to submit only an


initial notification and are exempt fromall other recordkeeping and reportingrequirements in both the proposedstandards and in the General Provisionsof Part 63. The initial notification mustcontain the name and address of thefacility as well as a certified statementthat each batch cold cleaning machineat the facility meets the applicablerequirements of Subpart T.

These proposed standards for the 5remaining subcategories would requirerecordkeeping and reporting to verifyemission limit standard compliance,and equipment and work standardscompliance. All records must be keptfor 5 years. The proposed recordkeepingprovisions would require that eachowner or operator electing to complywith the overall emission limit standardoption maintain records of dates andamounts of solvent added to the tank,solvent composition of wastes removedfrom the cleaning machine, andmaterials balance calculation sheetsdocumenting the 3-month rollingaverage solvent consumption estimatescalculated each month for their solventcleaning machine. Each owner electingto comply with the idling emission limitformat, supported by equipment andwork practice standards option, wouldbe required to maintain records ofequipment design, date of installation,and control device monitoring resultsfor 5 ears.

Each owner electing to comply withthe equipment and work practicestandards would be required to keeprecords of the monthly or weeklymonitoring of control equipmentparameters, owners's manuals for thesolvent cleaning machine and controls,and the date of installation for thesolvent cleaning machine and all of itscontrol devices.

As proposed by the GeneralProvisions (Subpart A of this part), astartup, shutdown, and malfunctionplan will be determined, followed, andkept on-site for audit inspection.

An initial notification report would berequired for each halogenated solventcleaning machine HAP source. Thisreport would include the name andaddress of the facility where the solventcleaning machine is located; solventcleaning machine design characteristics(type of cleaner, solvent air interfacearea); yearly halogenated solventconsumption for each cleaning machine;and existing solvent cleaning machinecontrol devices.

An initial compliance report would berequired within 30 days of the date ofcompliance (2 years after promulgationfor existing sources). This report wouldindicate whether each solvent cleaningmachine complies with the regulation,

and the standard format the owner oroperator elects to adopt to comply withthe regulation. The initial compliancereport would include an initial testreport (vendor-supplied or usingreference test method 307) for thoseowners or operators choosing to complywith the idling emission standardformat. Along with the initial testreport, an owner or operator would alsoreport the control parameters to bemaintained and monitored in order tocomply with the standards. This initialcompliance report would also includethe 3-month solvent consumptionrolling average for those owners oroperators choosing to comply with theoverall emission limit standard. If anowner or operator chooses theequipment and work practice standardformat, the initial report would includecontrol equipment verificationinformation and a control parametermonitoring report within 30 days of thedate of compliance.

After cleaning machine owners andoperators verify compliance, they areonly required to submit a compliancereport to the Administrator annually,unless noncompliance with thestandards is indicated. This reportincludes the startup, shutdown, andmalfunction reporting requirements asproposed by the General Provisions(Subpart A of this part). If anyexceedances occur, startup, shutdownand malfunction reporting requirementswill be submitted as part of theexceedance report.

Exceedance of any of the regulatorystandards, at any time after theapplicable compliance date, wouldrequire that a report of noncompliancebe submitted. This report would includeregulation violations such as when anyof the monitored operating parameterswere outside the required values (e.g., atemperature recorded at the center ofthe air blanket that is above regulation-specified levels, or when visualobservations reveal that a cover does notclose properly). These reports would besubmitted quarterly.* Additional reporting requirements for

owners and operators that elect tocomply with the overall emission limitinclude reports on solvent consumptionmaterials balance emissionsdocumenting the rolling 3-monthaverage emissions every year. Solventconsumption records are oftenmaintained as solvent purchase recordsby a facility operator or owner;therefore, it would not be a burden torecord and report solvent consumption.J. Operating Permit Program

.Under title V of the Act, major sourcesof HAP as defined by section 112 would

be required to obtain an operatingpermit. Often, emission limits,monitoring, and reporting andrecordkeeping requirements arescattered among numerous provisions ofSIP's or Federal regulations. Asdiscussed in the promulgated regulationfor the operating permit programpublished on July 21, 1992 (57 FR32250), this new permit programincludes all of the requirements thatpertain to a single major stationarysource in a single document. Sourcessubject to the program are required tosubmit complete permit applicationswithin a year after a State program isapproved by the EPA or, where a Stateprogram is not approved, within a yearafter a program is promulgated by theEPA. If an emission standard for areasources has been established under thispart, the EPA can choose to exempt thatarea source from the requirement toobtain a permit if permitting them isdetermined by the EPA to beimpracticable, infeasible, orunnecessarily burdensome. The EPAproposes in today's standards that thecold batch cleaning machinesubcategory be exempt from therequirement to obtain a permit based onthe reasons outlined above.

K. Solicitation of CommentsThe EPA specifically requests

comment on the following issues:1. For this source category, the EPA is

proposing that all area sources beregulated by MACT except the batchcold cleaner subcategory, which will berequired to meet GACT. No specificcriteria are statutorily prescribed todetermine whether GACT is warrantedfor area sources in a particular sourcecategory. The EPA requests commentson criteria that were used in thisproposal and any other(s) that thecommenter believes should be used inmaking this determination. In addition,as discussed in section VI.E., the EPArequests comment on whether theapplication of section 112(f) should bea factor in deciding whether to applyMACT or GACT to an area sourcecategory or subcategory.

2, As discussed in section I.B., theEPA requests comment on its proposedsubcategorization of the listed sourcecategory. Specific information isrequested concerning whether thedelisting criteria of section 112(c)(9) aremet, or alternatively, whether a findingunder section 112(c)(3) should be madefor individual subcategories.

3. Standards for batch cold cleaningmachines proposed today are based oncarburetor cleaners, but apply to anyHAP batch cold cleaning machines. TheEPA could not identify any other use of

62585


halogenated HAP solvents in coldcleaning machines. The EPA solicitscomments and supporting data on theinclusion of batch cold cleaningmachines in today's proposal oralternative strategies for addressingemissions from this subcategory that areconsistent with the Act. Specifically, theEPA requests comments on thereasonableness of setting standardsequal to the baseline level of control.Also, the EPA requests data andcomments on the existence of otherHAP batch cold cleaning machines andwhether the proposed standards wouldbe reasonable for those machines.

4. Limited data were identified by theEPA concerning downtime emissioncontrols and control efficiencies for thehalogenated solvent cleaning machinesubcategories. The EPA solicitscomments and data on downtimeemission controls and controlefficiencies.

5. At the NAPCTAC meeting inDecember 1992, there was concernexpressed by industry that the controlefficiencies used to evaluate theemission reductions and costs for thevarious options represent "typical"facilities as measured in the laboratoryand may not match the operatingconditions and schedules for eachindividual cleaning machine. However,multiple compliance alternatives areprovided for this NESHAP, includingequipment, work practice, and emissionlimit (idling and overall) standardssince the data were generally obtainedunder laboratory conditions. Theequipment standards, in conjunctionwith work practices, allows compliancewithout meeting a specified emissionlimit. No compliance method requiresdemonstration with a percent reductionstandard. The EPA believes that themultiple compliance alternatives intoday's proposal ensures maximumcontrol while minimizing the potentialimpacts of the use of laboratory data for"typical" cleaning machines. The EPArequests comments on this issue andany available data on control techniquesfor halogenated solvent cleaners.

6. The EPA solicits comment and dataon whether it is appropriate to includecredits for reductions in solvent usagewhen calculating the annualized costsand cost effectiveness values of theregulatory alternatives.

7. Alternative cleaning technologiespresented in the preamble includealternative solvents, alternative cleaningmachines and no-clean technologies.The EPA is seeking information onspecific applications of these cleaningtechnologies and whether they shouldbe used as the basis for MACT in thepromulgated standards. Information

supplied needs to include specifics onapplicability, costs, and multi-mediaimpacts (i.e., air, water, soil).Information obtained will be consideredby the EPA in the final rulemaking.

8. The EPA has not fully evaluatedroom enclosures as an option forreducing fugitive emissions. Roomenclosures could potentially captureand control fugitive emissions fromsolvent cleaning machines. However,occupational exposure health risks,costs, available room space, andhalogenated solvent cleaning machineaccessibility could be potentialproblems associated with the use ofroom enclosures. The EPA is seekingcomment on the cost, impacts,feasibility, and specific applicability ofthese controls and whether thesecontrols should be considered as MACTfor the promulgated standards.

9. The EPA is currently testing andgathering quantitative information ontwo low solvent emitting vapor cleaningsystems. The EPA is also collectinginformation on the solvents that thesesystems are designed to use, productsthat the systems can clean, ability toretrofit existing cleaning systems withthe technology, and industries that usethese systems. The EPA requestscomments or information concerningthese new technologies that justify thefeasibility of their inclusion in the finalrule.

Any comments submitted to theAdministrator on this proposed rule forexisting and new halogenated solventcleaners, however, should containspecific information and data pertinentto an evaluation of the magnitude andseverity of its impact and suggestedalternative courses of action that wouldavoid this impact.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, ifrequested, to discuss the proposedstandard in accordance with section307(d)(5) of the Act. Persons wishing tomake an oral presentation on theproposed standards for halogenatedsolvent cleaning machines shouldcontact the EPA at the address given inthe ADDRESSES section of thispreamble. Oral presentations will belimited to 15 minutes each.

Any member of the public may file awritten statement before, during, orwithin 30 days after the hearing. Writtenstatements should be addressed to theAir Docket Section address given in theADDRESSES section of this preambleand should refer to Docket No. A-92-39.

A verbatim transcript of the hearingand written statements will be availablefor public inspection and copyingdring normal working hours at theEPA's Air Docket Section inWashington, DC (see ADDRESSES sectionof this preamble).

B. DocketThe docket is an organized and

complete file of all the informationsubmitted to or otherwise considered bythe EPA in the development of thisproposed rulemaking. The principalpurposes of the docket are: (1) To allowinterested parties to readily identify andlocate documents so that they canintelligently and effectively participatein the rulemaking process and (2) toserve as the record in case of judicialreview (except for interagency reviewmaterial [307(d)(7)(A)]).

C. Executive Order 12866Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, 10/04/94), the Agency mustdetermine whether the regulatory actionis "significant" and therefore subject toOMB review and the requirements ofthe Executive Order. The order defines"significant" regulatory action as onethat is likely to lead to a rule that may:

1. Have an annual effect on theeconomy of $100 million or more, oradversely affect in a material way theeconomy, a sector of the economy,productivity, competition, jobs, theenvironment, public health or safety, orState, local or tribal governments orcommunities;

2. Create a serious inconsistency orotherwise interfere with an action takenor planned by another agency;

3. Materially alter the budgetaryimpact of entitlements, grants, user fees,or loan programs or the rights andobligation of recipients thereof; or

4. Raise novel legal or policy issuesarising out of legal mandates, thePresident's priorities, or the principlesset forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of ExecutiveOrder 12866, it has been determinedthat this rule is a "significant"regulatory action. This action wassubmitted to OMB for review. Changesmade in response to OMB suggestions orrecommendations will be documentedin the public record to be included inthe docket listed at the beginning oftoday's notice under ADDRESSES. Thedocket is available for public inspectionat the EPA's Air Docket Section, whichis listed in the ADDRESSES section of thispreamble.

D. Paperwork Reduction ActThe information collection

requirements in this proposed rule have


been submitted for approval to the OMBunder the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An InformationCollection Request document has beenprepared by EPA (ICR No. 1652-01),and a copy may be obtained from SandyFarmer, Information Policy Branch,EPA, 2136, 401 M Street, SW.,Washington, DC 20460, or by calling(202) 260-2740. The public reportingand recordkeeping burden for thiscollection of information is estimated toaverage 57 hours (or to vary from 36 to142 hours) the first year. This reportingand recordkeeping burden is estimatedto average 42 hours (or to vary from 29to 55 hours) annually, thereafter. Thisincludes time for reviewinginstructions, searching existing datasources, gathering and maintaining thedata needed, and completing andreviewing the collection of information.

Send comments regarding the burdenestimate or any other aspect of thiscollection of information, includingsuggestions for reducing this burden, toChief, Information Policy Branch, PM-223Y, U. S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,DC 20460, and to the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,Office of Management and Budget,Washington, DC 20503, marked"Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA."The final rule will respond to any OMBor pubic comments on the informationcollection requirements contained inthis proposal.E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The RFA, (or Public Law 96-354,September 19. 1980) requires Federalagencies to give special consideration tothe impact of regulation on smallbusinesses. The RFA specifies that aregulatory flexibility analysis must beprepared if a proposed regulation willhave a significant economic impact ona substantial number of small entities.Regulatory impacts are consideredsignificant if:

1. Annual compliance costs increasetotal costs of production by more than5 percent.

2. Annual compliance costs as apercent of sales are at least 20 percent(percentage points) higher for smallentities.

3. Capital cost of compliancerepresent a significant portion of capitalavailable to small entities.

4. The requirements of the regulationare likely to result in closures of smallentities.

A "substantial number" of smallentities is generally considered to bemore than 20 percent of the smallentities in the affected industry. Sincethe economic analysis deals only with

small entities (in this case, facilities),conclusions can be drawn from whatwas done there already. Each of thecriteria for significant impacts will beconsidered in turn.

The largest increase in total cost ofproduction from increased emissioncontrol is 0.61 percent (SIC 359-Industrial Machinery, n.e.c.). This figureis well below the significant-impactthreshold of five percent.

Assessing the differential impacts,measured by a comparison ofcompliance costs as a percent of salesfor small and large entities, is moredifficult as large model facilities werenot analyzed in the economic impactanalysis. Treatment of this smallbusiness impacts criterion involvescreating two large model facilities.

If it is assumed that large facilities uselarge solvent cleaning machines, thencompliance costs for large cleaningmachines are negative, and are thussavings. To be conservative, it isassumed here that large model facilitiespossess five very large solvent cleaningmachines, so that a "maximum savings"case is modelled. This case is importantas it models the maximum costdifferential between large and smallfacilities.

Large model facilities were created forSIC 359 (Industrial Machinery, n.e.c.)and SIC 254 (Partitions and Fixtures),SIC 359 was chosen because the smallmodel facilities in this group experiencethe highest cost absorption impact whencompared with other small modelfacilities. SIC 254 was used because ithad the smallest average per-facilityrevenue of facilities with greater than100 employees. Thus, if they incur thesame absolute savings as other largefacilities, their relative percentagesavings will be the highest, and theywill experience the greatest cost savingsin percentage terms as a result of thestandard. The cost differentials are in nocase larger than one percentage point.Thus, by this criterion, small businessimpacts are not deemed significant.

The third criterion focuses on theamount of capital available to smallbusinesses or facilities. Since the capitalcosts incurred as a result of investmentin control equipment needed for smallbusinesses to meet the standard was lessthan 10 percent of the businesses' totalassets in all 39 affected SIC codes, it wasconcluded that the total assets of smallfacilities will not be so adverselyaffected as to prohibit the procurementof outside financing. (Examining anincrease in capital costs as a percentageof total assets is a measure of the abilityof a firm or facility to meet this capitalcosts increase.) The conclusion, then, isthat lack of available capital will not be

an obstacle for small facilities incomplying with the regulation.

Criterion number four stipulates thatsmall business impacts are significant ifcompliance leads to closure. The onlyimplication of closure in the economicimpact analysis is found in the sectionon earnings impacts. Here it was foundthat, under worst-case assumptions,closures might occur in only two SICcodes, 254 and 259 (MiscellaneousFurniture and Fixtures), given their lowrate of profitability in the baseline. Ifthis indeed occurs, the question ofwhether or not these closures make upa substantial portion of small entitiesmust be addressed. The actual numberof impacted facilities in the 39 impactedSIC codes is unknown. If it can beassumed that each SIC is impacted inthe same proportion, a proxy for theshare of impacted facilities representedby SIC codes 254 and 259 is the totalnumber of facilities in these SIC codesas a share of the total number ofpotentially impacted firms. StandardIndustrial Classification codes 254 and259 hold a combined total 3,194 smallfacilities. This makes up 3.4 percent ofthe total 93,121 small facilities in all 39SIC codes. Thus, in the extreme casethat some closures result, the number ofclosures is estimated to far less than theamount required for substantial numberof impacted facilities.

In conclusion, and pursuant to theprovisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I herebycertify that this proposed rule, ifpromulgated, will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities, for the impactsdo not meet or exceed the fourpreviously stated criteria in the RFAguidelines.

Further information on the RFAscreening effort is available in thebackground information package (seethe Background Information Documentssection near the beginning of thispreamble).

F. Clean Air Act ProceduralRequirements

In accordance with section 117 of theAct, publication of this proposal waspreceded by consultation withappropriate advisory committees,independent experts, and Federaldepartments and agencies. TheAdministrator will welcome commentson all aspects of the proposedregulation, including health, economicand technological issues, and on theproposed liquid level procedure testmethod.

Section 112(d)(6) requires theAdministrator to review this regulationno less often than every 8 years. Inaddition, section 112(f)(2) requires a

62587

62588 Federal Register / VoL 58, No. 227 / Monday, November 29, 1993 / Proposed Rules

single review within 8 years ofpromulgation. This review will includean assessment of factors such asevaluation of the residual health risks,any overlap with other programs; theexistence of alternative methods,enforceability, Improvements inemission control technology and healthdata, and the recordkeeping andreporting requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Airpollution control, Hazardoussubstances, Halogenated solventcleaning machines, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 15. 1993.Carol K. Browner,TheAdmnistraor.

For the reasons set out in thepreamble, title 40, chapter 1, part 63, ofthe Code of Federal Regulations isamended as set forth below-.

PART 53-NATIONAL EIMSSIONSTANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIRPOLLUTANTS FOR SOURCECATEGORIES

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401. 7412. 7414.7416, and 7601.

2. Part 63 is amended by addingsubpart T consisting of §§ 63.460through 63.468 to read as follows:Subpart T-National Emission Standardsfor Halogenated Solvent CleaningSec.63.460 Applicability and designation of

source.63.461 Definitions.63.462 Standards.63.463 Alternative standards.63.464 Test methods.63.465 Monitoring procedures.63.466 Recordkeeping requirements.63.467 Reporting requirements.63.468 Equivalent methods of control.Subpart T-National Emission Standardsfor Halogenated Solvent Cleaning

§ 63.460 Applicability and designation ofsource.

(a) The provisions of this subpartapply to each individual solventcleaning machine that uses methylenechloride, perchloroethylene,trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, or anyblend using a halogenated solvent as acleaning solvent

(b) The provisions of subpart A of thispart apply to owners or operators ofbatch vapor and in-line cleaningmachine sources.

(c) The owners or operators of batchcold cleaning machine sources are notsubject to the provisions of subpart A ofthis part.

(df Each solvent cleaning machinethat commences construction orreconstruction on or after November 29,1993 shall achieve compliance with theprovisions of this subpart immediatelyupon startup or the date ofpromulgation of this subpart, whicheveris later.

(e) Each solvent cleaning machinethat commenced construction orreconstruction before November 29,1993 shall achieve-compliance with theprovisions of the subpart no later than24 months after the date ofpromulgation of this subpart.

(if) The following authorities shall beretained by the Administrator and nottransferredto a State: (To be determinedby EPA at the final rule stage.)

§63.461 Definitions.Terms used in this subpart are

defined as follows:Air blanket means the layer of air

inside the solvent cleaning machinefreeboard which extends from thesolvent/air interface to the top coil ofthe freeboard refrigeration device. Thecenter of the air blanket is equidistantbetween the sides and between the topand bottom of the air blanket.

Automated parts handling systemmeans a mechanical device that carriesall parts and parts baskets from theinitial loading of soiled parts throughthe removal of the cleaned parts at acontrolled speed. Automated partshandling systems include, but are notlimited to, hoists and conveyors.

Batch cleaning machine means asolvent cleaning machine In whichindividual parts or a set of parts movethrough the entire cleaning cycle beforenew parts are introduced into thesolvent cleaning machine. An open topvapor cleaning machine is a type ofbatch cleaning machine.

Bi-parting cover means an automaticcover for a solvent cleaning machinethat consists of two halves that slidehorizontally when the cover is beingopened or closed. A bi-parting cover canbe closed while parts are in the solventcleaning machine.

Carburetor cleaning machine means asmall maintenance solvent cleaningmachine or parts washer that uses roomtemperature liquid solvent and solventblends to clean parts (typicallycarburetors). Carburetor cleaningmachines have a water layer over thesolvent that provides control ofemissions. Carburetor cleaningmachines typically consist of a pailcontaining the solvent and water layer,

a basket in which the parts are placed,and a gasketed cover containing a motorwhich rotates the basket.

Clean liquid solvent means freshunused solvent or used solvent that hasbeen filtered, skimmed, and/or distilledto remove soils (e.g., skimmed of oils orsludge and strained of metal chips.)

Cold cleaning machine means anydevice or piece of equipment thatcontains and uses solvent in the liquidphase to clean and remove soils fromthe surfaces of materials.

Cover means a lid. top, or portal coverfor a solvent cleaning machine. Types ofcovers include, but are not limited to,bi-parting, roll-top, and hinged covers,

Downtime mode means the timeperiod when the solvent cleaningmachine is turned off.

Dwell means the period of time whenparts are held within the freeboard areaof the solvent cleaning machine aftercleaning to allow solvent to drain fromthe parts back into the solvent cleaningmachine.

Existing means any solvent cleaningmachine that commenced constructionor reconstruction on or before November29, 1993.

Freeboard area means for a batchcleaning machine the area within thesolvent cleaning machine that extendsfrom the solvent/air interface to the topof the solvent cleaning machine. For anin-line cleaning machine, It is the areawithin the solvent cleaning machinethat extends from the solvent/airinterface to the bottom of the entranceor exit opening, whichever is lower.

Freeboard height means for a batchcleaning machine the distance from thesolvent/air interface to the top of thecleaning machine. For an in-linecleaning machine, it is the distance fromthe solvent/air interface to the bottom ofthe entrance or exit opening, whicheveris lower.

Freeboard ratio means a ratio of thesolvent cleaning machine freeboardheight to the smaller interior dimension(length, width, or diameter) of thesolvent cleaning machine.

Freeboard refigeration device (alsocalled a chiller) means a set ofsecondary coils mounted in thefreeboard area which carry a refrigerantto provide a chilled air blanket abovethe solvent vapor.

Hoist means a mechanical device thatcarries the parts basket and the parts tobe cleaned from-the loading area, intothe solvent cleaning machine, and to theunloading area at a controlled speed. Ahoist can be operated by controls or canbe programmed to cycle parts throughthe cleaning cycle automatically.

Hot vapor recycle means a solventcleaning system for vapor cleaning


machines in which parts are cleanedusing superheated solvent vapor that isrecirculated in the vapor zone.

Idling mode means the time periodwhen a solvent cleaning machine isturned on but is not actively cleaningparts.

In-line cleaning machine (also calleda continuous cleaning machine) meansa solvent cleaning machine that uses anautomated parts handling system,typically a conveyor, to provide acontinuous supply of parts to becleaned. These units are fully 'enclosedexcept for the conveyor inlet and exitportals. In-line cleaning machines canbe either cold or vapor cleaningmachines.

Leak-proof coupling means a threadedor other type of coupling whichprevents solvents from leaking whilefilling or draining solvent to/from thesolvent cleaning machine.

Lip exhaust means a device installedaround the top of the opening of asolvent cleaning machine that draws inair and solvent vapor emissions andducts them away from the solventcleaning area.

Manual cover means a lid, top, orportal cover for a solvent cleaningmachine that is opened and closed byphysically lifting, sliding, or pulling it(i.e., is not operated mechanically).Manual covers include, but are notlimited to, hinged, sliding, and roll-topcovers.

Monthly reporting period means thecalendar month in which the owner oroperator of a solvent cleaning machineis required to calculate and report thesolvent emissions from each solventcleaning machine.

New means any solvent cleaningmachine, the construction orreconstruction of which is commencedafter the Administrator first proposes arelevant standard under this part.

Open top vapor cleaning machinemeans a batch solvent cleaning machinethat has its upper surface open to the airand boils solvent to create solvent vaporthat is used to clean parts.

Primary condenser means a series ofcircumferential cooling coils on a vaporcleaning machine through which arefrigerant is circulated or recirculatedto provide continuous condensation ofrising solvent vapors and, thereby,create a controlled vapor zone whichprevents vapors from escaping from thecleaning machine.

Reduced room draft means decreasingthe flow or movement of air across thesolvent cleaning machine to meet thespecifications of § 63.462(e)(2)(ii).

Soils means water-insolublecontaminants that are removed from theparts being cleaned. Soils include, but

are not limited to, grease, oils, waxes,metal chips, carbon deposits, fluxes,and tars.

Solvent cleaning machine means anydevice or piece of equipment that useshalogenated solvent in the liquid orgaseous phase to clean and remove soilsfrom the surfaces of materials.

Solvent/air interface means for avapor cleaning machine the location ofcontact between the concentratedsolvent vapor layer and the air. For acold cleaning machine it is the locationof contact between the liquid solventand the air.

Solvent/air interface area means for avapor cleaning machine the surface areaof the solvent vapor that is exposed tothe air. For a cold cleaning machine itis the surface area of the liquid solventthat is exposed to the air.

Solvent vapor zone means for a vaporcleaning machine the area whichextends from the liquid solvent surfaceto the solvent vapor/air interface.

Sump means the part of a solventcleaning machine where the liquidsolvent is located.

Sump heater coils means the heatingsystem on a vapor cleaning machinewhich uses steam, electricity, or hotwater to boil the liquid solvent.

Superheated vapor system meansemploying the use of heating coils thatboil liquid solvent generating solventvapors that are heated to temperaturesthat are more than 1.5 times greater thanthe solvent boiling point.

Vapor cleaning machine means abatch or in-line solvent cleaningmachine that boils liquid solventgenerating solvent vapor that is used asan integral part of the cleaning cycle.

Water cover means for a batch coldcleaning machine a layer of water whichfloats above the denser solvent andprovides control of solvent emissions. Inmany cases, the solvent used in batchcold cleaning machines is soldcontaining the appropriate amount ofwater to create a water cover.

Working mode means the time periodwhen the solvent cleaning machine isturned on and is actively cleaning parts.

§ 63.462 Standards.(a) Except as provided in § 63.463,

each existing, new, or reconstructedbatch vapor or in-line solvent cleaningmachine shall conform to the followingdesign requirements:

(1) Each cleaning machine shall beequipped with a cover that may bereadily opened or closed, completelycovers the cleaner openings when inplace, and is free of cracks, holes, andother defects.

(2) Each cleaning machine shall havea freeboard ratio of at least 0.75.

(3) Each cleaning machine shall use -an automated parts handling system ata maximum speed of 3.3 meters perminute for transporting all parts andparts baskets from the initial loading ofparts through removal of cleaned parts.

(4) Each vapor cleaning machine shallbe equipped with a device that shuts'offthe sump heat if the sump liquid solventlevel drops down to the height of thesump heater coils.

(5) Each vapor cleaning machine shallbe equipped with a vapor level controldevice which shuts off sump heat if thevapor level in the vapor cleaningmachine rises above the height of theprimary condenser.

(6) No lip exhaust shall be used,unless all collected solvent vapors arerouted through a carbon adsorber.

(b) Except as provided in § 63.463,each owner or operator of an existing ornew batch vapor cleaning machine shallcomply with either paragraph (b)(1) or(b)(2) of this section:

(1) Each owner or operator of a batchvapor cleaning machine with a solvent/air interface area of 1.21 square metersor less shall:

(i) Employ one of the controlcombinations listed in table I of thissubpart, or

(ii) Demonstrate that their solventcleaning machine can achieve andmaintain an idling emission limit of0.15 kilograms per hour per squaremeter of solvent/air interface area,determined using the procedures in§ 63.464(a).

(2) Each owner or operator of a batchvapor cleaning machine with a solvent/air Interface area of greater than 1.21square meters shall:

(i) Employ one of the controlcombinations listed in table 2 of thissubpart, or

(ii) Demonstrate that their solventcleaning machine can achieve andmaintain an idling emission limit of0.15 kilograms per hour per squaremeter of solvent/air interface area,determined using the procedures in§ 63.464(a).

(c) Except as provided in § 63.463,each owner or operator of an in-linecleaning machine shall comply withparagraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section,as appropriate:

(1) Each owner or operator of anexisting in-line cleaning machine shall:

(i) Employ a 1.0 freeboard ratio and afreeboard refrigeration device, or

(ii) Demonstrate that their solventcleaning machine can achieve andmaintain an idling emission limit of0.10 kilograms per hour per squaremeter of solvent/air interface area, asprovided in § 63.464(a).

62589


(2) Each owner or operator of a newin-line cleaning machine shall:

(i) Employ a super heated vaporsystem and a freeboard refrigerationdevice, or

(ii) Demonstrate that their solventcleaning machine can achieve andmaintain an Idling emission limit of0.10 kilograms per hour per squaremeter of solvent/air interface area. asdetermined using the procedures in§ 63.464(a).

(d) Except as provided in § 63.463.each owner or operator of an existing ornew batch vapor or in-line solventcleaning machine shall meet all of thefollowing required work and operationalpractices that are applicable to the typeof cleaner.

(1) The coverts) to each solventcleaning machine shall be closed duringthe downtime mode.

(2) The parts baskets or the partsbeing cleaned in an open top batchvapor cleaner shall not occupy morethan 50 percent of the solvent/airinterface area. unless the parts basketsor parts are introduced at a speed of 0.9meters per minute or less.

(3) Any spraying operations shall bedone within the vapor zone or within asection of the solvent cleaning machinethat is not directly exposed to theambient air.

(4) Parts or parts baskets shall not beremoved from any solvent cleaningmachine until condensation or drippinghas stopped.

(5) Parts shall be oriented so that thesolvent drains from them freely. Partshaving cavities or blind holes shall betipped or rotated before being removedfrom any solvent cleaning machine.

(6) During startup of each vaporcleaning machine, the primarycondenser shall be turned on before thesum p heater.

(7)During shutdown of each vaporcleaning machine, the sump heater shallbe turned off, and the solvent vaporlayer allowed to collapse before theprimary condenser is turned off.

(8) When solvent is added or drainedfrom any solvent cleaning machine, thesolvent shall be transferred usingthreaded or other leakproof couplingsand the end of the pipe in the solventsump shall be located beneath the liquidsolvent surface.

(9) Each solvent cleaning machineand associated controls shall bemaintained as recommended by themanufacturers of the equipment.

(10) Each owner or operator of asolvent cleaning machine shallcomplete and pass a test of solventcleaning operating procedures ifrequested during an inspection by theAdministrator.

(It) Waste solvent, still and sumpbottoms shall be collected and stored inclosed containers. The closed containersmay contain a device that would allowpressure relief, but would not allowliquid solvent to drain from thecontainer.

(e) Each owner or operator of a batchvapor or in-line solvent cleaningmachine complying with paragraph(b)(1), (b)(21, (c)(1), or (c)(2) of thissection shall:

(1) Conduct monitoring of eachcontrol device as provided in § 63.465.

(2) Operate each control device usedto comply with these standards withinthe following parameters:

(i) If a freboard refrigeration device isused to comply with these standards,the owner or operator shall ensure thatthe temperature at the center of the airblanket is 20 degrees below the ambientroom temperature.

(ii) If a reduced room draft is used tocomply with these standards, the owneror operator shall:

(A) Ensure that the movement of airacross the solvent cleaning machinedoes not exceed 15.2 meters per minuteat any time. and

(B) Establish and maintain theoperating conditions under which thewind speed was demonstrated to be 15.2meters per minute or less as describedin § 63.465(a)(2).

(iii) If a hi-parting cover is used tocomply with these standards, the owneror operator shall ensure that the coveropens only for part entrance andremoval, completely covers the cleaneropenings when closed, and is free ofcracks, holes, and other defects.

(iv) If a manual cover is used tocomply with these standards, the owneror operator shall ensure that the coveris in place whenever parts are not in thesolvent cleaning machine, completelycovers the cleaner openings when inplace, and is free of cracks, holes, andother defects.

(v) If a dwell is used to comply withthese standards, the owner or operatorshall:

(A) Determine the appropriate dwelltime for each part or parts basket asdescribed in § 63.464(c), and

(B) Ensure that parts are held in thefreeboard area of the solvent cleaningmachine after cleaning for thedetermined dwell time.

(vi) If a super-heated vapor system isused to comply with these standards,the owner or operator shall ensure thatthe temperature at the center of thesolvent vapor zone is 50 percent abovethe solvent's boiling point.

(0 Each owner or operator of a batchvapor or in-line solvent cleaningmachine complying with paragraph

(b)(1)[ii), (b)(2)(ii), (c)(1)(ii), or (c)[2)(ii)of this section shall:

(1) Conduct an initial performancetest to:

(i) Demonstrate compliance with theapplicable idling emission limit, and

(ii) Establish parameters that shall bemonitored to demonstrate compliance.

(2) Conduct monitoring of theparameters identified in the initialperformance test. The requiredmonitoring frequency will bedetermined by the Administrator andwill be based on the variability of theparameters that are established.

(3) Operate solvent cleaning machinewithin parameters identified in theinitial performance test.

(g) Each owner or operator of a batchcold solvent cleaning machine shall:

(1) Employ a tightly fitting cover thatshall be closed at all times exceptduring parts entry and removal.

(2) Employ a water layer on thesurface of the solvent within thecleaning machine.

(3) Collect and store waste solvent inclosed containers. The closed containermay contain a device that would allowpressure relief, but-would not allowliquid solvent to drain from.thecontainer.

§ 63.463 Alternative standards.(a) As an alternative to meeting the

requirements in § 63.462, each owner oroperator of a batch vapor or in-linesolvent cleaning machine subject to theprovisions of this subpart may:

(1) Maintain a log of solvent additionsand deletions for each cleaner, and

(2) Ensure that the emissions fromeach solvent cleaning machine are equalto or less than the limits presented intable 3 of this subpart, as determinedusing the procedures in § 63.464(b).

(b) Each owner or operator of a batchvapor or in-line solvent cleaningmachine complying with § 63.463(a) ofthis subpart shall demonstratecompliance with the applicable 3-monthrolling average monthly emission limitin table 3 of this subpart on a monthlybasis, as described in § 63.464(b).

§ 63.464 Test methods.(a) Each owner or operator of a batch

vapor or in-line solvent cleaningmachine choosing to comply with§ 63.462(b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), (c)(1)(ii), or(c)(2)(ii) shall determine the idlingemission rate of the solvent cleaningmachine using Reference Method 307 inappendix A of this part.

(b) Each owner or operator of a batchvapor or in-line solvent cleaningmachine choosing to comply with§ 63.463(a) shall, on the first day ofevery month:


(1) Ensure that the solvent cleaningmachine system contains only cleanliquid solvent,

(2) Using the records of all solventadditions and deletions for the previousmonthly reporting period requiredunder'§ 63.463(a), determine solventemissions (Ej using the followingequation, except as provided inparagraph (b)(3) of this section:Ei = SAi- LSRI - SSR (1)where:Ei=the total solvent emissions from the

solvent cleaning machine during themost recent monthly reporting period[kilograms of solvent].

SAi=the total amount of liquid solvent addedto the solvent cleaning machine duringthe most recent monthly reporting periodi, [kilograms of solvent].

LSR,=the total amount of clean liquid solventremoved from the solvent cleaningmachine during the most recent monthlyreporting period 1, [kilograms of solvent].

SSR,=the total amount of solvent removedfrom the solvent cleaning machine insolid waste, as supported by testsconducted using EPA reference method25d, during the most recent monthlyreporting period 1, tkilograms of solvent).

(3) Owners or operators for whichSSR, is an unknown can, as analternative to the method described inparagraph (b)(2) of this section.determine solvent emissions using thefollowing procedure:

(i) Determine SSP1 using the followingequation:SSI=(EF)(SA)-LS;. (2)where:SSR,=the total amount of solvent removed

from the solvent cleaning machine insolid waste during the most recentmonthly reporting period I, (kilograms ofsolvent].

EF = an emission factor which has thefollowing values. For existing and newbatch vapor cleaning machines: smalland medium cleaning machines = 0.41,large and very large cleaning machines =0.43. For existing in-line cleaningmachines = 0.36. For new in-linecleaning machines = 0.48

SA1=the total amount of liquid solvent addedto the solvent cleaning machine duringthe most recent monthly reporting periodI, [kilograms of solvent].

LSRi=the total amount of clean liquid solventremoved from the solvent cleaningmachine during the most recent monthlyreporting period 1, Ikilograms of solvent].

(ii) Use the value of SSRI obtainedfrom equation (2) to solve for Ej inequation (1).

(4) Determine the monthly rollingaverage, EA, for the 3-month periodending with the most recent reportingperiod using the following equation:

IEjEA = 1" (3)

3where:EA=the average solvent emissions over the

preceding 3 monthly reporting periods,(kilograms of solvent/month).

Ej=solvent emissions for each month (j) forthe most recent 3 monthly reportingperiods (kilograms of solvent).

j=1 = the most recent monthly reportingperiod.

j=2 = the monthly reporting periodimmediately prior to j=1.

j=3 = the monthly reporting periodimmediately prior to j=2.

(c) Each owner or operator of a batchvapor or in-line solvent cleaningmachine choosing to use a dwell tocomply with § 63.462 shall determinethe appropriate dwell for each part orparts basket using the followingprocedure:

(1) Determine the amount of time forthe part or parts basket to cease drippingonce placed in the vapor zone.

(2) The minimum proper dwell periodis equal to 35 percent of the timedetermined in paragraph (c)(1) of thissection.

j 63.465 Monltorkn procedures.(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(c) of this section, each owner oroperator of a batch vapor or in-linesolvent cleaning machine complyingwith § 63.462(b)(1)(i), (b)(2)(i), (c)(1)(i),or (c)(2Xi) shall conduct weeklymonitoring of the following controldevices:

(1) If a freeboard refrigeration deviceis used to comply with these standards,the owner or operator shall use athermometer or thermocouple tomeasure the temperature at the center ofthe air blanket while the solventcleaning machine is in the idling mode.

(2) If a reduced room draft is used tocomply with these standards, the owneror operator shall measure thewindspeed using the followingprocedure:

(i) Determine the direction of thewind current by slowly rotating avelometer until the maximum speed islocated.

(ii) Orient a velometer in the directionof the wind current at each of the fourcomers of the machine.

(iii) Record the reading for eachcorner.

(iv) Average the values obtained ateach corner and record the average windspeed.

(3) If a super-heated vapor system isused to comply with these standards,the owner or operator shall use athermometer or thermocouple to

measure the temperature at the center ofthe solvent vapor zone while the solventcleaning machine is in the idling mode.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph(c) of this section, each owner oroperator of a batch vapor or in-linesolvent cleaning machine complyingwith § 63.462 (b)(1)(i), (b)(2)(i), (c)(1)(i),or (c€}2)(i) shall conduct monthlymonitoring of the following controldevices, as appropriate: I

(1) If a bi-parting cover is used tocomply with these standards, the owneror operator shall conduct a monthlyvisual inspection to determine if the hi-parting cover is opening and closingproperly, completely covers thecleaning machine openings whenclosed, and is free of cracks, holes, andother defects.

(2) If a manual cover is used tocomply with these standards, the owneror operator shall inspect the covermonthly to ensure that it is free ofcracks, holes, or other defects.

(3) If a hoist is used to comply withthese standards, the owner or operatorshall determine the hoist speed bymeasuring the time it takes to travel ameasured distance (meters per minute).

(4) If a dwell is used to comply withthese standards, the owner or operatorshall determine the dwell time bymeasuring the period of time that partsare held within the freeboard area of thesolvent cleaning machine after cleaning.

(c) Each owner or operator using acontrol device listed In paragraph (a) or(b) of this section can use alternativemonitoring procedures approved by theAdministrator.

(d) Each owner or operator of a batchvapor or in-line solvent cleaningmachine complying with§ 63.462(b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), (c)(1)(ii), or(c)(2)(ii) shall establish monitoringparameters and procedures whichdemonstrate compliance, and submitsuch parameters and procedures andother rationale to the Administrator forapproval.

§63.466 Recordkeeping requirements.(a) Each owner or operator of a batch

vapor or in-line solvent cleaningmachine complying with the provisionsof§ 63.462 shall maintain records of thefollowing for the lifetime of themachine:

(1) Owner's manuals for the solventcleaning machine and controlequipment,

(2) The date of installation for thesolvent cleaning machine and all of itscontrol devices,

(3) If a dwell is used to comply withthese standards, records of the tests,required in § 63.464(c), used to

62591


determine an appropriate dwell time foreach part or parts basket.

(4) Each owner or operator of a batchvapor or in-line solvent cleaningmachine complying with the provisionsof § 63.462 (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), (c)(1)(ii),or (c)(2)(ii) shall maintain records of theinitial performance test, including theidling emission rate and values of themonitoring parameters measured duringthe test.

(b) Each owner or operator of a batchvapor or in-line solvent cleaning.machine complying with the provisionsof § 63.462 shall maintain records of theresults of control device monitoringrequired under § 63.465(a), (b), (c), and/or (d) either in computerized or writtenform for a period of 5 years.

(c) Each owner or operator of a batchvapor or in-line solvent cleaningmachine complying with the provisionsof § 63.463 shall maintain records of thefollowing for a period of 5 years:

1) The dates and amounts of solventthat is added to the solvent cleaningmachine;

(2) The solvent composition of wastesremoved from cleaning machines asmeasured during batch specific tests oras calculated using the proceduredescribed in § 63.464(b)(3); and

(3) Calculation sheets showing howmonthly emissions and the rolling 3-month average emissions from thesolvent cleaning machine weredetermined, and the results of allcalculations.

§63.467 Reporting requirements.(a) Each owner or operator of an

existing batch vapor or in-line solventcleaning machine subject to theprovisions of this subpart shall submitan initial report to the Administrator nolater than 90 days after the date ofpromulgation of this subpart. Thisreport shall include the following:

(1) The name and address of theowner or operator; and

(2) The address (i.e., physicallocation) of the solvent cleaningmachine(s); and

(3) A brief description of each solventcleaning machine, including machinetype (batch vapor, or in-line), solvent/airinterface area, and existing controls; and

(4) An estimate of the yearlyconsumption of halogenated solvents foreach solvent cleaning machine.

(b) Each owner or operator of anexisting batch cold solvent cleaningmachine subject to the provisions of thissubpart shall submit an initial report tothe Administrator no later than 90 daysafter the date of promulgation of thissubpart. This report shall include thefollowing:

(1) The name and address of theowner or operator; and

(2) The address (i.e., physicallocation) of the solvent cleaningmachine(s); and

(3) A brief description of each solventcleaning machine, including machinetype (such as, carburetor cleaner),solvent/air interface area, and existingcontrols;

(4) An estimate of the yearlyconsumption of halogenated solvents foreach solvent cleaning machine; and

(5) A statement, signed by the owneror operator of the solvent cleaning.machine, stating that the solventcleaning machine for which the reportis being submitted, is in compliancewith the provisions of this subpart.

(c) Each owner or operator of a batchvapor or in-line solvent cleaningmachine complying with the provisionsof § 63.462 shall submit to theAdministrator an initial statement ofcompliance for each solvent cleaningmachine within 30 days after thecompliance date specified in § 63.460(b) and (c). This statement shall includethe following:

(1) A list of the control equipmentused to achieve compliance for eachsolvent cleaning machine; and

(2) For each piece of controlequipment required to be monitored, alist of the parameters which aremonitored and the values of theseparameters measured on or during thefirst month after the compliance date;and

(3) Each owner or operator of asolvent cleaning machine complyingwith the provisions of § 63.462(b)(1)(ii),(b)(2)(ii), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(ii) shall submita test report for tests of idling emissionsmeeting the specifications in Method307 of appendix A of this subpart.

(i) This test must be on the samespecific model cleaner used at thesource and can be done by the owner oroperator or can be supplied by thevendor of that solvent cleaningmachine.

(ii) This report must clearly state themonitoring parameters and monitoringfrequency required to demonstratecontinuous compliance.

(iii) If a solvent cleaning machinevendor test report is used todemonstrate compliance, it shallinclude the following for the solventcleaning machine tested: Model name,the date the solvent cleaning machinewas tested, serial number, a drawing ofthe solvent cleaner tested.

(iv) If a solvent cleaning machine'vendor test report is used the owner oroperator of the solvent cleaningmachine shall:

(A) Submit a statement by the solventcleaning machine vendor that the unit

tested is the same as the unit the reportis being submitted for; or

(B) Demonstrate to theAdministrator's satisfaction that thesolvent emissions from the solventcleaning machine for which the testreport is being submitted are equal to orless than the solvent emissions from thesolvent cleaning machine in the vendortest report.

(4) Conditions to maintain the windspeed requirements of § 63.462(e)(2)(ii).

(d) Each owner or operator of a batchvapor or in-line solvent cleaningmachine complying with the provisionsof § 63.463 shall submit to theAdministrator an initial statement ofcompliance for each solvent cleaningmachine within 30 days after thecompliance date specified in § 63.460(b) and (c). The statement shall, includethe results of the first 3-month averageemissions calculation.

(e) Each owner or operator of a batchvapor or in-line solvent cleaningmachine complying with the provisionsof § 63.462 shall submit a control devicemonitoring report every year beginningone year after the compliance datespecified in § 63.460 (b) and (c). Thiscontrol device monitoring report shouldcontain all of the following:

(I) The results of all controlequipment monitoring recorded under§ 63.466 (a); and

(2) A signed statement from thefacility owner stating that, "Alloperators of solvent cleaning machineshave received training on the properoperation of solvent cleaning machinesand their control devices sufficient topass the test required in § 63.462(d)(10)."

(f) Each owner or operator of a batchvapor or in-line solvent cleaningmachine electing to comply with theprovisions of § 63.463 shall submit asolvent consumption report every year.This solvent consumption report shallcontain all of the following:

(1) The average monthly solventconsumption for the solvent cleaningmachine in kilograms/month; and

(2) The 3-month monthly rollingaverage solvent consumption estimatescalculated each month using the methodas described in § 63.464(b)(4).

(g) The owner or operator of anaffected facility must submit anexceedance report if any requiredmonitoring or emissions calculationsindicate that any applicablerequirements of § 63.462 or § 63.463 arenot met. This report must be submittedon a quarterly basis for any quarter inwhich there is an exceedance. Thisreport must include the reason for theexceedance and a description of therepairs performed, if applicable.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 227 / Monday, November 29, 1993 1 Proposed Rules

§ 63.468 Equ~valenrt methods of control.Upon written application, the

Administrator may approve the use ofequipment or procedures after they havebeen satisfactorily demonstrated to be

equivalent, in terms of reducingemissions of halogenated solvents to theatmosphere, to those prescribed forcompliance within a specifiedparagraph of this subpart. The

application must contain a completedescription of the equipment orprocedure and the proposedequivalency testing procedure and thedate, time, and location scheduled forthe equivalency demonstration.

TABLE 1 .-- CONTROL COMBINATIONS FOR BATCH VAPOR SOLVENT CLEANING MACHINES WITH A SOLVENT/AIR INTERFACEAREA OF 1.21 SQUARE METERS OR LESS

Option Control corribinations

1 Freeboard ratio of 1.0, freeboard refrigeration device, reduced room draft.2 Bi-paring cover used during idling and working modes, freeboard figeration device, reduced room draft.3 61B-paring cover used during idling and working modes, freeboard ratio ofv1.0, reduced room draft.4 Freeboard refrigeration device, manual cover used during Idling mode, reduced room draft.

TABLE 2.--CONTROL COMBINATIONS FOR BATCH VAPOR SOLVENT CLEANING MACHINES WITH A SOLVENT/AIR INTERFACEAREA GREATER THAN 1.21 SQUARE METERS

Option Control combinations

1 Bi-parting cover used during idling and working modes, freeboard refrigeration device, reduced room draft.2 Dwell, freeboard refrigeration device, reduced room draft.3 Bi-parting cover used during idling and working modes, freeboard refrigeration device, super heated vapor.4 Freeboard ratio of 1.0, reduced room draft, super heated vapor.5 Dwell, reduced room draft, super heated vapor.6 Bi-parting cover used during idling and working modes, reduced room draft, super heated vapor.7 Bi-parting cover used during idling and working modes, dwell, reduced room draft.

TABLE 3.-EMISSION LIMITS FOR BATCH VAPOR AND IN-LINE SOLVENT CLEANING MACHINES

3-monthrolling av-

eragempnthly

Solvent cleaning machine emissionlimit (kilo-

grams/squaremeters-month)

Batch vapor solvent cleaning machines ...................................................................................................................................................... 109.8Existing in-line solvent cleaning machines .................................................................................................................................................. 153.2New in-line solvent cleaning machines ...................................................................................................................................................... 98.5

3. Appendix A to part 63 is amendedby adding in numerical order Method307 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 63-Test Methods

Method 307-Determination of Emissionsfrom Halogenated Solvent Vapor CleaningMachines Using a Liquid Level Procedure1. Applicability and Principle

1.1 Applicability. This method isapplicable to the determination of thehalogenated solvent emissions from solventvapor cleaners in the idling mode.

1.2 Principle. The solvent level in thesolvent cleaning machine is measured usinginclined liquid level indicators. The changein liquid level corresponds directly to theamount of solvent lost from the solventcleaning machine.

2. Apparatus

Note: Mention of trade names or specificproducts does not constitute endorsement bythe Environmental Protection Agency.

2.1 Inclined Liquid Level Indicator. Aschematic of the inclined liquid levelindicators used in this method is shown inFigure 307-1; two inclined liquid levelindicators's having 0.05 centimetersdivisions or smaller. Glass, Teflon, or anysimilar material that will not react with thesolvent shall be used. A 6-in. x 1-in. slopeis recommended; however the slope mayvary depending on the size and design of thesolvent cleaning machine. Note: It isimportant that the inclined liquid levelindicators be constructed with ease ofreading in mind. The inclined liquid levelindicators should also be mounted such thatthey can be raised or lowered if necessary tosuit the solvent cleaning machine size.

2.2 Horizontal Indicator. Device to checkthe inclined liquid level indicatorsorientation relative to horizontal.

2.3 Velocity Meter. Hot-wire and vaneanemometers, or other devices capable ofmeasuring the flow rates ranging from 0 to15.2 meter$ per minute across the solventcleaning machine.

3. Procedure

3.1 Connection of the Inclined LiquidLevel Indicator. Connect one of the inclinedliquid level indicators to the boiling sumpdrain and the other inclined liquid levelIndicator to the immersion sump drain usingTeflon tubing and the appropriate fittings. Aschematic diagram is shown in Figure 307-2.

3.2 Positioning of Velocity Meter.Position the velocity meter so that itmeasures the flow rate of the air passingdirectly across the solvent cleaning machine.

3.3 Level the Inclined Liquid LevelIndicators.

3.4 Initial Inclined Liquid Level IndicatorReadings. Open the sump drainage valves.Allow the solvent cleaning machine tooperate long enough for the vapor zone toform and the system to stabilize (check with

62593


manufacturer). Record the inclined liquidlevel indicators readings and the startingtime on the data sheet. A sample data sheetis provided in Figure 307-3.

3.5 Final Inclined Liquid Level IndicatorsReadings. At the end of the 16 hour test run,check to make sure the inclined liquid levelindicators are level; if not, make thenecessary adjustments. Record the finalinclined liquid level indicators readings andtime.

3.6 Determination of Solvent Vapor/AirInterface Area for Each Sump. Determine thearea of the solvent/air interface of theindividual sumps. Whenever possible,physically measure these dimensions, ratherthan using factory specifications. Aschematic of the dimensions of a solventcleaning machine is provided in Figure307-4.

4. Calculations

4.1 Nomenclature.AB=Area of boiling sump interface, m 2 (ft).A1=Area of immersion sump interface, m2

(ft2).Av=Area of solvent vapor/air interface, m2

(ft2).

E=Emission rate, g/m 3-hr (Ib/ft3-hr).K=100 cm/m for metric units.=12 in./ft for English units.Lr=Final boiling sump inclined liquid level

indicators reading, cm (in.).Lai=Initial boiling sump inclined liquid level

indicators reading, cm (in.).Lir-Final immersion sump inclined liquid

level indicators reading, cm'(in.).L1 =lnitial immersion sump inclined liquid

level indicators reading, cm (in.).SB=Length of the boiling sump, m (ft).

S1=Length of the immersion sump, m (ft).Sv=Length of the solvent vapor/air interface,

m (ft).WB=Width of the boiling sump, m (ft).W1=Width of the immersion sump, m (ft).Wv=Width of the solvent vapor/air interface,

m (ft).p=Density of solvent, g/m3 (lb/ft3).0=-Test time, hr.

4.2 Area of Sump Interfaces. Calculate theareas of the boiling and immersion sumpinterfaces as follows:Ae=SBW 5 Eq. 307-1Ai=SW 1 Eq. 307-2

4.3 Area of Solvent Vapor/air Interface.Calculate the area of the solvent vapor/airinterface as follows:AvfSvWv Eq. 307-3

4.4 Emission Rate. Calculate the -missionrate as follows:

E= (LBf - LBi ) p AB + (L if - L1, ) p A,

KAyO

Figures to Appendix A to Part 63BILLING CODE 6560-60-P

Eq. 307 - 4

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 227 / Monday, November 29, 1993 I Proposed Rules 62595

0 (c co

c LO0 - 0- -. 0DE (0-; o

D- 0 ' LL -

0 E~

cD

U

-

C:

0

CY

Cr) m' U

M

m

L_


+j4-J

900 g

cn

00I °

0(11

+)

0>>I Cc

I 0 a0L@

I - 0

0

*~ L

~00

" " >

a) 1z~) 3

C CD


Date Run

Solvent typeSolvent density g/m3 (lb/ft')

Length of boiling sump (SB), m (ft)Width of boiling sump (Wa), m (ft)

Length of immersion sump (S1), m (ft)Width of immersion sump (WI), m (ft)

A

Length of solvent vapor/air interface (Sv), m (ft)Width of solvent vapor/air interface (Wv), m (ft)

BoilingSump

S4

ImmersionSump

DA%!, 4 "m.L M MRSc fln ...... -- - 1- -11.j

Figure 307-3. Data sheet.

ClockFlowRate

4 P~i"m

62597


wo.co. . E

.............................

. .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. . ............ (f.

...........-.. ..

_ ... . ..... _ ..

i(I)

U ) ::: :: : ::: : :::: :: :: :::: : : ::::::: ::: :::::: :: : 0

m --

. . .. . . . .... . ..

U')

C

00

.. . . . . . a)..... . .f * . .. . . .. . .::::: : : : : : : : : :i : -

. . .. . . . ..............................

....................................... .......

... ~c' .......

.. .........

............