[Federal Register: May 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 85)]

[Rules and Regulations]

[Page 25137-25159]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr03my07-9]

[[Page 25137]]

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

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

National Air Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning; Final Rule

[[Page 25138]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009; FRL-8303-6]

RIN 2060-AK22

National Air Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating revised standards to limit emissions of

methylene chloride (MC), trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene

(PCE) from facilities engaged in halogenated solvent cleaning. On

December 2, 1994, EPA promulgated technology-based emission standards

to control HAP emissions of halogenated solvents from halogenated

solvent cleaning. Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(f),

EPA has evaluated the remaining risk to public health and the

environment following implementation of the technology-based rule and

is promulgating more stringent standards in order to provide an ample

margin of safety to protect public health. These final standards will

provide further reductions of MC, PCE, and TCE beyond the 1994 national

emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), through

application of a facility-wide total MC, PCE, and TCE emission

standard. In addition, EPA has reviewed the standards as required by

section 112(d)(6) of the CAA and has determined that, taking into

account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies,

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 1/38
no further action beyond what is required under CAA section 112(f) is

necessary at this time.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective May 3, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009. All documents in the docket are listed on the

http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available (e.g., Confidential Business

Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted

by statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will

be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket

materials are available either electronically through

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009, EPA West Building, Room B-102, 1301

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The Docket telephone number is (202) 566-1744, and the

telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

EPA visitors are required to show photographic identification and sign

the EPA visitor log. After processing through the X-ray and

magnetometer machines, visitors will be given an EPA/DC badge that must

be visible at all times.

Informational updates will be provided via the EPA Web site at

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm as they are available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the final rule

amendments, contact Mr. H. Lynn Dail, EPA, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural

Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, NC

27711; telephone number (919) 541-2363; fax number (919) 541-3470; email address: dail.lynn@epa.gov. For questions on the residual risk

analysis, contact Mr. Dennis Pagano, EPA, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division,

Sector Based Assessment Group (C539-02), Research Triangle Park, NC

27711; telephone number (919) 541-0502; fax number (919) 541-0840; email address: pagano.dennis@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities

potentially regulated by the final rule include:

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

Examples of

Category NAICS \1\ code potentially

regulated entities

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

Industry.................... Any of numerous Operations at

industries using sources that are

halogenated solvent engaged in solvent

cleaning, primary cleaning using MC,

affected industries PCE, or TCE.

include those in

NAICS Codes

beginning with: 331

(primary metal

man.), 332

(fabricated metal

man.), 333

(machinery man.),

334 (computer and

electronic product

man.), 335

(electrical

equipment,

appliance, and

component man.);

336 (transportation

equipment man.);

337 (furniture and

related products

man.); and 339

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 2/38
(misc. man.).

Federal, State, local, and .................... Operations at

tribal government. sources that are

engaged in solvent

cleaning using MC,

PCE, or TCE.

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

\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final

rule. This final rule directs an owner or operator of a facility that

is subject to the 1994 NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (40 CFR

63.460 of subpart T), to determine whether today's final standards

require the facility additionally to operate under the certain specific

emission limits. If you have any questions regarding the applicability

of the final rule to a particular entity, consult the person listed in

the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Docket. The docket number for the National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Halogenated Solvent Cleaning (40 CFR part 63,

subpart T) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009.

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,

an electronic copy of the final rule is also available on the http://WWW.

Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the final rule will

be posted on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and

guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.

The TTN provides information and technology

exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA), judicial review of the final rule is available only by filing a

petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit by July 2, 2007. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only

an objection to the final rule that was raised with

[[Page 25139]]

reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be

raised during judicial review. Moreover, under CAA section 307(b)(2),

the requirements established by this final action may not be challenged

separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to

enforce these requirements.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides a mechanism for

EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``if the person

raising the objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was

impracticable to raise such an objection [within the period for public

comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period

for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review)

and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the

rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to the EPA

should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the

person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section, and the Associate General Counsel, Air and Radiation Law

Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004.

Outline. The information presented in this Preamble is organized as

follows:

I. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

B. What is halogenated solvent cleaning?

C. What are the health effects of halogenated solvent cleaning?

D. What does the 1994 halogenated solvent cleaning NESHAP

require?

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Issuance of the Notice of Data Availability (NODA)

III. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What does the final rule require?

1. What are the requirements for halogenated solvent cleaning

machines?

2. What are the requirements for halogenated solvent cleaning

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 3/38
machines at military depot maintenance facilities?

3. What are the requirements for continuous web cleaners and

halogenated solvent cleaning machines at narrow tube manufacturing

and aerospace industries?

B. What is the rationale for the final rule?

1. Revision of the Baseline Risk Estimate

2. Rationale for the 60,000 kg/yr MC Equivalent Emission Limit

3. Rationale for the Requirements for Halogenated Solvent

Cleaning Machines at Military Depot Maintenance Facilities.

4. Rationale for Our Decisions Regarding Continuous Web Cleaners

and Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Machines at Narrow Tube

Manufacturing and Aerospace Facilities

C. What is the compliance schedule?

D. What is the final decision on the applicable unit risk value?

E. What is EPA's finding on the Section 112(d)(6) review

requirements?

IV. Responses to Significant Comments

A. Significant Comments on the Proposal

1. Emission Limit Option 1 or Option 2

2. Equation for MC Equivalents

3. Use of CalEPA or OPPTS URE for Implementation of the Emission

Limit

4. Compliance Deadline

5. Applicability of Control Requirements

6. Costs Associated With Compliance

7. General Comments

V. Responses to Significant Comments on EPA's December 14, 2006,

Notice of Data Availability (NODA)

A. Emission Limits

B. Cost Impacts

C. Compliance Schedule

VI. Impacts

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With

Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From

Environmental Health and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a comprehensive regulatory

process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from

stationary sources. In accordance with CAA section 112(c), EPA

identifies categories and subcategories of sources emitting one or more

of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). CAA section 112(d) then

requires us to promulgate national technology-based emission standards

for each category of sources that emits or has the potential to emit

any single HAP at a rate of ten tons or more per year or any

combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year (known as

``major sources''), as well as for certain area sources emitting less

than those amounts. For major sources, these technology-based standards

must reflect the maximum reductions of HAP achievable (after

considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air health and

environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum

achievable control technology (MACT) standards. For area sources, CAA

section 112(d)(5) provides that the standards may reflect generally

available control technology or management practices in lieu of MACT,

and are commonly referred to as generally available control technology

(GACT) standards.

In what we refer to as the ``technology review'', CAA section

112(d)(6) then requires EPA to review the CAA section 112(d) standards

and to revise them ``as necessary, taking into account developments in

practices, processes and control technologies,'' no less frequently

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 4/38
than every 8 years.

The residual risk review is described in section 112(f) of the CAA.

EPA prepared a Report to Congress discussing (among other things)

methods of calculating risk posed (or potentially posed) by sources

after implementation of the MACT standards, the public health

significance of those risks, the means and costs of controlling them,

actual health effects to persons in proximity to emitting sources, and

recommendations as to legislation regarding such remaining risk. The

EPA prepared and submitted this report (``Residual Risk Report to

Congress,'' EPA-453/R-99-001) in March 1999. The Congress did not act

on any of the recommendations in the report; thereby, triggering the

second stage of the standard-setting process, the residual risk phase.

CAA section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine whether additional

standards are ``required in order to provide an ample margin of safety

to protect public health.'' If the MACT standards for a HAP

``classified as a known, probable, or possible human carcinogen do not

reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to

emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to less than 1-

in-a-million,'' EPA must promulgate residual risk standards for the

source category (or subcategory) as necessary to provide an ample

margin of safety. EPA's framework for making ample margin of safety

determinations under CAA section 112(f)(2) is provided in the Benzene

NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) which was codified by Congress

in CAA section 112(f)(2)(B). The EPA also must promulgate more

stringent standards to prevent an adverse environmental effect (defined

in CAA section 112(a)(7) as ``any significant and widespread adverse

effect * * * to wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural resources,

including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened

species or significant degradation of environmental quality over broad

[[Page 25140]]

areas.''), but must consider costs, energy, safety, and other relevant

factors in doing so.

B. What is halogenated solvent cleaning?

Halogenated solvent cleaning machines use the halogenated solvents

methylene chloride (MC), perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene

(TCE), or 1,1,1,-trichloroethane (TCA) and halogenated solvent blends

or their vapors to remove soils such as grease, oils, waxes, carbon

deposits, fluxes, and tars from metal, plastic, fiberglass, printed

circuit boards, and other surfaces. Halogenated solvent cleaning is

typically performed prior to processes such as painting, plating,

inspection, repair, assembly, heat treatment, and machining. Types of

solvent cleaning machines include, but are not limited to, batch vapor,

in-line vapor, in-line cold, and batch cold solvent cleaning machines.

Buckets, pails, and beakers with capacities of 7.6 liters (2 gallons)

or less are not considered solvent cleaning machines.

Halogenated solvent cleaning does not constitute a distinct

industrial category, but is an integral part of many major industries.

The five 3-digit NAICS Codes that use the largest quantities of

halogenated solvents for cleaning are NAICS 337 (furniture and related

products manufacturing), NAICS 332 (fabricated metal manufacturing),

NAICS 335 (electrical equipment, appliance, and component

manufacturing), NAICS 336 (transportation equipment manufacturing), and

NAICS 339 (miscellaneous manufacturing). Additional industries that use

halogenated solvents for cleaning include NAICS 331 (primary metals),

NAICS 333 (machinery), and NAICS 334 (electronic equipment

manufacturing). Non-manufacturing industries such as railroad (NAICS

482), bus (NAICS 485), aircraft (NAICS 481), and truck (NAICS 484)

maintenance facilities; automotive and electric tool repair shops

(NAICS 811); and automobile dealers (NAICS 411) also use halogenated

solvent cleaning machines. We estimated that there were approximately

16,400 batch vapor, 8,100 in-line, and perhaps as many as 100,000 batch

cold cleaning machines in the U.S. prior to promulgation of the MACT

standards. More recent information shows that the current number of

cleaning machines is much lower than these pre-MACT estimates. We

currently estimate the number of sources in this source category to be

about 3,800 cleaning machines located at 1,900 facilities in the U.S.

This estimate is based on information we collected in 1998 and reflects

the decreases in HAP emissions and demand that were expected due to

implementation of MACT control technologies and work practice

standards. Information suggesting that further decreases in solvent

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 5/38
usage and therefore, solvent emissions, have occurred in the post-MACT

implementation years may reflect that either the number of sources in

the source category have declined or that sources are implementing

methods to recycle more solvent, resulting in reduced emissions and

some cost savings.

``Solvent cleaning machine'' is defined in the Federal Register, 40

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Sec. 63.461. Solvent cleaning

machine types such as batch cleaners and in-line cleaners are also

described. Both cleaner types can be designed to use either solvent at

room temperature (cold cleaners) or solvent vapor (vapor cleaners).

Continuous web cleaners are a subset of in-line cleaners that are

used to clean products such as films, sheet metal, and wire in rolls or

coils. The workload is uncoiled and conveyorized throughout the

cleaning machine at speeds in excess of 11 feet per minute and recoiled

or cut as it exits the machine. Emission points from continuous

cleaners are similar to emission points from other inline cleaners.

Continuous cleaners are semi-enclosed, with emission points where the

workload enters and exits the machine. Squeegee rollers reduce carry

out emissions by removing excess solvent from the exiting workload.

Some continuous machines have exhaust systems similar to those used

with some other in-line cleaners.

C. What are the health effects of halogenated solvent cleaning?

MC, PCE, TCA, and TCE are the primary halogenated solvents used for

solvent cleaning. The health effects of these four solvents were

described in the proposed rule of August 17, 2006 (71 FR 47680), which

is available for review in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009. All four

produce acute and/or chronic non-cancer health effects at sufficient

concentrations; three of the four have been classified as probable or

possible human carcinogens by either EPA or other governmental or

international agencies. Carbon tetrachloride and chloroform are no

longer used as degreasing solvents; therefore, their health effects

were not discussed in the proposed rule.

The Agency's Integrated Risk Information System's (IRIS)

toxicological reviews of PCE, TCE and MC are currently being developed

or revised. The current schedule indicates that the new or final IRIS

toxicological reviews of the carcinogens PCE, TCE and MC are not

expected until late 2008 for PCE, mid 2009 for MC, and late 2010 for

TCE. A publicly available draft revised toxicological review of the

non-carcinogenic HAP TCA, has been released for external peer review. A

final revised IRIS toxicological review of TCA is not expected until

late 2007. The National Research Council (NRC) released a report in

2006 that described their findings after a comprehensive review of the

health effects of TCE, focusing on critical issues in developing an

objective, realistic, and scientifically based health risk assessment

for TCE. This report is available at http://www.nas.edu/catalog/11707.html.

Toxicity or status information for the four HAPs may be

obtained from the following Web sites: EPA's Toxicity database at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/table1.pdf shows the benchmarks

for the four HAPs used in the risk assessment. Specific information

underlying the values used may be found at the following locations:

California EPA's Web site at http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/index.html

has the background information on PCE and TCE used to

develop the cancer potency values.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's Web site at

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html has the background information

used to develop the non-cancer values for MC and PCE.

EPA's IRIS Web site at http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html provides

the information supporting the cancer potency value for MC.

Status reports for IRIS chemical reassessments, (i.e., TCA) are

available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/iristrac/index.cfm.

D. What does the 1994 halogenated solvent cleaning NESHAP require?

On December 2, 1994, we promulgated national emission standards for

halogenated solvent cleaning (59 FR 61801, (December 2, 1994)) and

required existing sources to comply with the national emission

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 6/38
standards by December 2, 1996.

The promulgated standards in 40 CFR Subpart T include multiple

alternatives to allow owners or operators maximum compliance

flexibility. The final rules for the halogenated solvent cleaning

source category are available in the docket, EPA-HA-OAR-2002-0009.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

The August 17, 2006 proposed rule would have required all owners

and

[[Page 25141]]

operators of halogenated solvent cleaning machines that are subject to

the 1994 NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, subpart T), except for cold batch area

source cleaning machines subject to GACT, to comply with a facilitywide solvent emission limit, summarized in Table 1 of this Preamble. As

proposed, the standards would be in addition to the requirements of the

1994 NESHAP.

Specifically, we co-proposed two facility-wide emission limits for

facilities that use multiple HAP solvents, 25,000 kg/yr and 40,000 kg/

yr of MC equivalent emissions, and solicited comments on which of these

two options would be the most appropriate. We developed a method for

facilities using multiple HAP solvents to determine their emission

limit by calculating their MC-equivalent emissions using the toxicityweighting equation, which is shown as equation 1, below. We proposed

that where more than one halogenated solvent is used at a facility, the

owner or operator would be required to calculate the facility's

weighted halogenated solvent cleaning emissions using equation 1 and to

comply with the limit in the last row of Table 1 of this Preamble. For

owners or operators of facilities that use a single halogenated solvent

(MC, TCE or PCE), we proposed that the owner or operator of each

affected facility would be required to ensure that its emissions of the

single halogenated solvent would not exceed the single-solvent limits

specified in Table 1 of this Preamble.

Table 1.--Summary of the Proposed Facility-Wide Annual Emission Limits

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

Proposed facility-wide Proposed facility-wide

Solvents emitted annual emission limits annual emission limits

in kg/yr--option 1 in kg/yr--option 2

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

PCE only...................................................... \a\ 3,200 \b\ (26,700) \a\ 2,000 \b\ (16,700)

TCE only...................................................... 10,000 6,250

MC only....................................................... 40,000 25,000

Multiple solvents--Calculate the MC-weighted emissions using 40,000 25,000

equation 1...................................................

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

\a\ PCE emission limit calculated using California EPA (CalEPA) Unit Risk Estimate (URE).

\b\ PCE emission limit calculated using the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS)

Unit Risk Estimate (URE).

Equation 1:

(kgs/yr of PCE emissions x A)+(kgs/yr of TCE emissions x B) + (kgs/yr

of MC emissions) = MC weighted emissions in kgs/yr

In equation 1, the facility emissions of PCE and TCE are weighted

according to their carcinogenic potency relative to that of MC. Thus,

``A'' in the equation is the ratio of the cancer unit risk estimate

(URE) for PCE to the URE for MC, and the ``B'' in the equation is the

ratio of the URE for TCE to the URE for MC. Because the IRIS assessment

for PCE is in process, we requested comment on the use of the CalEPA

URE, the OPPTS URE, or other values in deriving the PCE emission limit

for the final rule. See 71 FR 47680. As explained in our proposal, the

value of ``A'' would be 1.5 or 12.5, depending on whether we used the

OPPTS URE or the CalEPA URE value for PCE. The value for ``B'' is 4.25.

At proposal, we stated that there may be other approaches for deriving

emissions standards for facilities that use multiple HAP. We requested

comment on other possible methods for establishing emission limits at

facilities using more than one of the listed HAP solvents.

Further, at proposal we presented and discussed our evaluation of

four other emission limits that would reduce residual risk. These

emission limits are summarized below:

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 7/38
100,000 level--Sources would reduce MC-equivalent

emissions to no more than 100,000 kg/yr (220,000 lbs/yr).

60,000 level-- Sources would reduce MC-equivalent

emissions to no more than 60,000 kg/yr (132,000 lbs/yr).

15,000 level-- Sources would reduce MC-equivalent

emissions to no more than 15,000 kg/yr (33,000 lbs/yr).

6,000 level--Sources would reduce MC-equivalent emissions

to no more than 6,000kg/yr (13,200 lbs/yr).

See 71 FR 47680-81 for further discussion of these four emission

levels.

We proposed a compliance deadline of two years after the effective

date of the final rule for existing sources by resolving the seemingly

conflicting provisions of section 112(f)(4)(A) and 112(i), and by

determining that CAA section 112(i) was the controlling provision for

compliance deadlines for existing sources with regard to standards

promulgated under CAA section 112(f)(2). This proposal was based on our

belief that the proposed compliance date was realistic for any affected

facility that has to plan a control strategy, purchase and install the

control device(s), and bring the control device(s) online.

See 71 FR 47683-84 for a complete discussion of the proposed

facility-wide solvent emission limit, compliance options, and our

rationale for proposing the facility-wide solvent emission limit.

A. Issuance of the Notice of Data Availability (NODA)

We received comments on the proposed rule from industry, states,

solvent manufacturers, industry associations and district air

associations. Industry's comments were primarily submitted by four

specific sectors: Narrow tubing manufacturing facilities, facilities

that manufacture specialized products requiring continuous web

cleaning, aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities, and

military depot maintenance facilities. Additional comments were

submitted by facilities that use multiple halogenated solvent cleaning

machines. Comments and data submitted by the four industry sectors

focused on the unique nature and size of the halogenated solvent

cleaning machines they use in their cleaning operations. These data and

information were otherwise not available to EPA at proposal. The

commenters expressed concern about their ability to comply with the

proposed emission limits because of technical and economic

difficulties. They also expressed an inability to meet the proposed

compliance deadline. Based on these comments and our desire to

reconcile these concerns, we issued a Notice of Data Availability

(NODA) on December 14, 2006 (71 FR 75182). In addition, in order to

have adequate time to address these concerns, we asked for and received

an extension of our December 15, 2006 court-ordered promulgation

deadline to April 16, 2007. The NODA was intended to gather more

information, especially from these four industry sectors, on the

availability of technology or methods to meet the proposed emission

limits, the costs to achieve the proposed emission limits, and the time

required to achieve the proposed emission limits.

[[Page 25142]]

As a result of the NODA, EPA received significant comments from

responders associated with the above-noted industries, industry

associations, and commenters that were not associated with the abovenoted industries. They provided additional data and information that

were directly relevant to the promulgation of the proposed facilitywide emission limits. These data and information were otherwise not

available to EPA at proposal. A more complete description of the

comments received may be found in section V of this Preamble and in the

docket for this rule.

III. Summary of Final Rule

A. What does the final rule require?

Using the data from comments on the proposal and NODA, we reevaluated the costs and technical feasibility of complying with the

proposed emission limits. The re-analysis resulted in a final rule that

changed from what we proposed, especially for four industry sectors:

narrow tubing manufacturing facilities, facilities that manufacture

specialized products requiring continuous web cleaning, aerospace

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 8/38
manufacturing and maintenance facilities, and military depot

maintenance facilities.

1. What are the requirements for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Machines?

EPA is promulgating a facility-wide emission limit of 60,000 kg/yr

MC equivalent, as shown in Table 2 of this Preamble, applicable to all

existing halogenated solvent cleaning machines with the exception of

halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by the following industries:

Facilities that manufacture narrow tubing, facilities that manufacture

specialized products requiring continuous web cleaning, aerospace

manufacturing and maintenance facilities, and military depot

maintenance facilities.

This final rule also requires owners or operators of halogenated

solvent cleaning machines that use any one of the halogenated solvents

covered by this rule (i.e., MC, PCE or TCE), with the exception of the

halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by the above-noted

industries, to ensure that facility-wide solvent emissions from all

halogenated solvent cleaning activities are less than or equal to the

limit for the single halogenated solvent specified in Table 2 of this

Preamble.

This final rule also requires halogenated solvent cleaning machines

that are constructed or reconstructed after August 17, 2006, with the

exception of halogenated solvent cleaning machines associated with the

above-noted industries, to comply with the 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent

emission limit upon the effective date of this rule or upon startup,

whichever occurs later. The revised requirements apply in addition to

the 1994 NESHAP.

For area sources subject to the 1994 NESHAP and constructed or

reconstructed after August 17, 2006, the final rule revisions add to

the previous 1994 NESHAP by requiring implementation of the 60,000 kg/

yr MC equivalent facility-wide emission limit upon the effective date

of this rule or upon startup, whichever occurs later. This final rule

also limits the use of any one of the halogenated solvents covered by

this rule (i.e., MC, PCE or TCE), at area sources, to the limits for

the single halogenated solvent specified in Table 2 of this Preamble.

The area sources in the halogenated solvent cleaning source category

that are subject to GACT are not subject to these additional standards.

These area sources are cold batch cleaning machines.

When a facility's total halogenated solvent emissions from its

degreasing operations exceed the applicable emission limits, the

facility must implement means to comply with these amended standards.

In addition, under this final rule, the 1994 NESHAP requirements for

all halogenated solvent cleaning machines remain applicable. Compliance

with the 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit is demonstrated by

determining the annual PCE, TCE, and MC emissions for all cleaning

machines at the facility, using Equation 1 as necessary, and comparing

to the emission limits in Table 2.

There are no other additional equipment monitoring or work practice

requirements associated with the facility-wide annual emissions limit.

Annual emissions of PCE, TCE, and MC are determined based on records of

the amounts and dates of the solvents added to cleaning machines during

the year, the amounts and dates of solvents removed from cleaning

machines during the year, and the amounts and dates of the solvents

removed from cleaning machines in solid waste. Records of the

calculation sheets showing how the annual emissions were determined

must be maintained. A facility will determine compliance with the

standards by comparing their annual MC-equivalent emissions to the

limits specified in Table 2 of this final rule.

Table 2.--Summary of the Facility-Wide Annual Emission Limits

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

Final general

halogenated solvent Final military

Solvents emitted cleaning facility-wide maintenance facilityannual emission limits wide annual emission

in kg/yr limits in kg/yr

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

PCE only...................................................... 4,800 8,000

TCE only...................................................... 14,100 23,500

MC only....................................................... 60,000 100,000

Multiple solvents--Calculate the MC-weighted emissions using 60,000 100,000

equation 1...................................................

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

Equation 1:

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 9/38
(kgs/yr of PCE emissions x A)+(kgs/yr of TCE emissions x B) + (kgs/yr

of MC emissions) = MC weighted Emissions in kgs/yr

In this equation, the facility emissions of PCE and TCE are

weighted according to their carcinogenic potency relative to that of

MC. Thus, ``A'' in the equation is the ratio of the URE for PCE to the

URE for MC, and the ``B'' in the equation is the ratio of the URE for

TCE to the URE for MC. The value of ``A'' is 12.5 (see section C

below). The value for ``B'' is 4.25.

2. What are the requirements for halogenated solvent cleaning machines

at military depot maintenance facilities?

For existing halogenated solvent cleaning machines in use at

military depot maintenance facilities where multiple halogenated

solvents are emitted, the final rule sets a facility-wide emission

limit of 100,000 kg/yr of MC equivalent emissions as indicated in Table

2 of this Preamble. This final rule also limits the use of any one of

the halogenated solvents covered by this rule (i.e., MC, PCE or TCE),

to the limits for the single halogenated solvent specified in Table 2

of this Preamble. In

[[Page 25143]]

addition, the 1994 NESHAP requirements remain applicable.

For halogenated solvent cleaning machines that are constructed or

reconstructed after August 17, 2006 and that are used at military depot

maintenance facilities, the final rule revisions add to the previous

1994 NESHAP by requiring implementation of the 100,000 kg/yr MC

equivalent emission limit upon the effective date of this rule or upon

startup, whichever occurs later.

Military Depot Maintenance Facilities are Government-owned

industrial centers that operate solely for the purpose of repairing,

modifying, converting and refitting worn and/or damaged military assets

for redistribution to military units and are subject to the 1994

NESHAP. Depot level maintenance includes the repair, fabrication,

manufacture, rebuilding, assembly overhaul, modification,

refurbishment, test, analysis, repair-process design, in-service

engineering, upgrade, painting and disposal of parts, assemblies,

subassemblies, software, components, or end items that require

industrial shop facilities, tooling, support equipment, and/or

personnel of higher technical skills, or processes beyond the military

installation's organizational level capability.

3. What are the requirements for continuous web cleaners and

halogenated solvent cleaning machines at narrow tube manufacturing and

aerospace facilities?

The requirements set forth in this final rule are not applicable to

continuous web cleaning machines, halogenated solvent cleaning machines

that are located at narrow tubing manufacturing facilities, and the

aerospace manufacturing and maintenance industry and facilities. Narrow

tube manufacturing facilities primarily engage in the production of

small diameter (mechanical and hypodermic size) cold drawn metallic,

seamless tubes from materials such as stainless steel, nickel alloys,

titanium and its alloys, and alloys of zirconium with a portion of the

outside diameters 1/4'' or less (a subset of NAICS 331210), and are

subject to the 1994 NESHAP. Aerospace manufacturing and maintenance

facilities manufacture, rework, or repair aircraft such as airplanes,

helicopters, missiles, rockets, and space vehicles, and are subject to

the 1994 NESHAP. The 1994 NESHAP requirements remain applicable to all

the continuous web and halogenated solvent cleaning machines associated

with the above-noted facilities.

For the above-noted facilities, we are adopting no changes to the

1994 NESHAP under CAA Section 112(f) because the current level of

control called for by the existing NESHAP reduces HAP emissions to

levels that present an acceptable level of risk, protects public health

with an ample margin of safety, and prevents any adverse environmental

effects. The finding regarding an ``ample margin of safety'' is based

on a consideration of the additional costs of further control as

represented by compliance with emissions limits adapted for each

industry sector, considering availability of technology, costs and time

to comply with further controls (see Section III.B., below for a

discussion of our rationale for this final rule).

B. What is the rationale for the final rule?

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 10/38
Based on comments and data received on both the proposal and the

NODA, we re-evaluated the risk, the technical feasibility, the costs of

the proposed options, and the compliance time needed to implement the

proposed options. This re-analysis focused especially on the four

industry sectors discussed above. Additionally, in response to public

comments we updated the risk assessment for the entire source category

using the 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database, which was

not available for the proposal. The following rationale presents the

results of our re-analysis of the data.

1. Revision of the Baseline Risk Estimate

Based on public comment, we used the 2002 NEI inventory to reanalyze the risk from this source category. The resulting re-analysis

of risk at the baseline emission level (i.e., the level of emissions

allowed by the 1994 MACT) indicated that the maximum individual cancer

risk (MIR) associated with this source category is 100-in-a-million

with an annual cancer incidence of 0.55. This is as compared to the

200-in-a-million MIR and 0.40 annual cancer incidence level that we

presented at proposal, which was based on the 1999 NEI database. We

consider both MIR values to be acceptable levels of maximum individual

risk considering the number of people exposed at these levels and the

absence of other adverse human and environmental health effects. We

note that the MIR of 100-in-a-million (calculated using the 2002 NEI

data) is the same regardless of the URE for PCE chosen for the risk

analysis (i.e., the CalEPA value or the OPPTS value, which results were

contrasted at proposal). This is because PCE is not the only driver of

the MIR risk level for the highest risk facilities.

Given the uncertainties associated with the development of emission

inventories, neither the 1999 nor the 2002 NEI inventory should be

considered as correct in an absolute sense or as suggesting temporal

trends in degreasing machine populations or emissions. Rather, we

consider them to be ``snapshots'' of the true long-term inventory of

emissions for this source category, each carrying its own degree of

uncertainty. As such, the derived risk assessment results compared

above should be regarded as ranges within which the true risk metrics

are likely to fall.

The revised population risk distribution at baseline emission

levels shows that about 25 people are exposed to the MIR risk level,

about 22,000 people are at estimated risks of >= 10-in-a-million risk

level, and about 4,000,000 people are at estimated risks of >= 1-in-amillion. This is compared to approximately 90 people exposed to risks

at the MIR level (200-in-a-million), about 42,000 people at estimated

risks of >= 10-in-a-million risk level, and about 6,000,000 people at

estimated risks of >= 1-in-a-million that we presented at proposal.

Similar to the MIR and annual cancer incidence metrics, these values

may be an indication of the uncertainty presented by the databases

because, as earlier explained, both inventories are ``snapshots'' of

the industry rather than an absolute reflection of the ``current''

state of the industry.

We did not reassess the environmental risks using the 2002 NEI

inventory but believe that no ``adverse environmental effects,'' as

defined in CAA section 112(a)(7), would occur given the similarities of

the human health risk results between the 1999 NEI data and 2002 NEI

data and the fact that we showed in the proposal that no adverse

environmental effects would likely occur using the 1999 NEI inventory.

2. Rationale for the 60,000 kg/yr MC Equivalent Emission Limit

EPA is promulgating a facility-wide emission limit of 60,000 kg/yr

(MC equivalent emissions) applicable to emissions from all new and

existing halogenated solvent cleaning machines that are subject to the

1994 NESHAP, with the exception of halogenated solvent cleaning

machines used by the following industry sectors: Narrow tubing

manufacturing, facilities that manufacture specialized products

requiring continuous web cleaning, aerospace manufacturing and

maintenance, military depot

[[Page 25144]]

maintenance operations, and cold batch cleaning machines (which are

subject to GACT). Area sources operating halogenated solvent cleaning

machines that are subject to GACT also are not required to comply with

the facility-wide emission limits. This final rule reflects our

decision that the 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit from the

August 17, 2006 proposal provides an ample margin of safety to protect

public health and prevents adverse environmental effects.

In response to public comments received on our proposal and

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 11/38
subsequent NODA, we re-examined the data and assumptions used to

estimate the risk and compliance costs presented in the Preamble to our

proposed rule. We determined that certain significant data and

assumptions that we used to develop our cost estimates at proposal were

either no longer relevant, not reflective of more recent inventory

data, or not valid. As a result, we re-evaluated risks using the more

recent inventory data and modified our cost estimates in response to

public comment. The most important change we made is that we reanalyzed the risk metrics and costs using the halogenated solvent

cleaning facilities in the finalized 2002 NEI, but removing facilities

in four specific industry sectors--aerospace manufacture and

maintenance facilities, narrow tube manufacturing facilities,

facilities using continuous web cleaning machines, and military

equipment maintenance facilities--from the database for the purpose of

estimating the risks and compliance costs associated with the remaining

facilities (Sections III.A.3 and III.B.3 explain our rationale for

removing the facilities in these industry sectors from this analysis).

Other changes we made to our cost estimates in response to public

comment are as follows:

We used the finalized 2002 NEI database containing

facility and emissions data as the source of our baseline emissions

estimates. We removed aerospace manufacture and maintenance facilities,

narrow tube manufacturing facilities, facilities using continuous web

cleaning machines, and military equipment maintenance facilities from

the database for the purpose of estimating the compliance costs for the

remaining facilities. (Sections III.A.3 and III.B.3 explain our

rationale for removing these facilities from this analysis.)

We changed our assumptions about the percent reductions in

emissions that can be achieved by vacuum-to-vacuum machines from 97

percent to 95 percent.

In the proposal, we assigned no operation and maintenance

cost to vacuum-to-vacuum machines. Based on public comment, our cost

estimates for this final rule incorporate annual operation and

maintenance costs of $18,832 for each machine.

We updated the cost per gallon of PCE and TCE based on

information provided by commenters representing manufacturers of

solvents and the narrow tube manufacturing industry.

We added a carbon adsorption device (CAD) option that

assumes a 30 percent control in emissions. We did not have this option

in the cost assumptions we made at proposal. We received comments that

this option may be available for some industries but that it is at

least ten times more expensive than the retrofit options we costed for

the proposal.

We reduced the number of units for which solvent switching

could be a compliance option from 30 percent, used in the proposal, to

15 percent. We also corrected our method for calculating the emission

reduction impacts and solvent savings associated with solvent

switching.

After re-assessing the risk and calculating revised cost estimates,

we re-examined our decision as to what level of control is necessary to

provide an ample margin of safety to protect human health and to

prevent adverse environmental effects, as required by the second step

of the residual risk process under CAA section 112(f)(2). We considered

the re-assessed risk estimates and the other health information along

with additional factors consistent with the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR

38044, September 14, 1989), such as cost, technological feasibility,

uncertainties and other relevant factors as discussed at proposal. We

re-analyzed the risk metrics using the halogenated solvent cleaning

facilities in the 2002 NEI, but removing aerospace manufacture and

maintenance facilities, narrow tube manufacturing facilities,

facilities using continuous web cleaning machines, and military depot

maintenance facilities.

At proposal we had presented two options for emission limits that

would apply to all facilities in the category subject to the 1994 MACT

standards--25,000 kg/yr MC equivalent and 40,000 kg/yr MC equivalent.

We estimated that the 25,000 kg/yr limit would result in an emissions

reduction of 6,778 tons/year, thereby reducing the MIR to 10-in-a

million and reducing cancer incidence by 0.14-0.27 cases annually

(depending on which URE we use for PCE), at an annual cost savings of

$4.9 million annually or a cost savings of $724/ton HAP reduced.

Comments received included support for and against this level of

emissions reduction. Similarly, at proposal we estimated that applying

the 40,000 kg/yr limit to facilities in the entire source category

would result in an emissions reduction of 5,911 tons/yr, reducing the

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 12/38
MIR to 20-in-a million and reducing cancer incidence by 0.12-0.23 cases

annually, at an annual cost savings of $5.9 million annually or a cost

savings of $1,000/ton HAP reduced.\1\

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

\1\ In considering these revised cost estimates, it should be

noted that there may be inherent uncertainties or anomalies in the

availability of information that underlie our costs for our options,

regardless of whether the estimates be positive costs or net cost

savings. There may also be other factors that are not reflected in

these estimates, however. For example, these estimates are largely

based on a 15-year equipment life for existing affected cleaners

(20-year for new cleaners) and a discount rate of 7 percent. If

industry determines that a shorter equipment life for the controls

considered in this analysis is appropriate based on perceived

uncertainty of future availability of these solvents, then the

opportunity cost of capital will be higher and our estimates of net

cost savings may be altered. If these controls are in operation

longer than expected by industry, however, then a longer equipment

life would be appropriate and our estimates of costs, which may be

net costs or net savings, may also be altered.

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

In developing the final rule, we initially re-examined the 25,000

kg/yr and 40,000 kg/yr levels of control for the subset of the category

that excludes the four specific industry sectors identified above,

using costing assumptions revised based on public comment as described

above. This re-analysis uses the 2002 NEI data rather than the 1999 NEI

data used in the proposal. We observed that although the overall

reductions in MIR and cancer incidence at these levels would be similar

to those estimated at proposal for the entire category, the substantial

cost savings estimated at proposal would change to a net cost for both

emission limits. This is a result of both our use of certain cost

assumptions at proposal that have been amended for analyzing the cost

of the final rule and the fact that four industry sectors are now being

considered separately in this final rule. Specifically, for the 25,000

kg/yr limit, our analysis of the subset of the category that excludes

the four specific industry sectors shows the same reduction in MIR (to

10-in-a-million) and similar estimated reduction in cancer incidence,

0.24 cases annually, as we showed at proposal. In contrast, our cost

analysis for this subset of the source category shows a total

annualized cost (not savings) of about $1.2 million, or a cost of about

$520 per ton HAP reduced (we estimate 2,351 tons HAP reduced at this

level). Similarly, for the 40,000 kg/yr limit, our revised analysis

shows the

[[Page 25145]]

same reduction in MIR (to 20-in-a-million), and a similar estimated

reduction in cancer incidence, 0.21 cases annually, as we showed at

proposal, but at an annualized cost (not savings) of $130,000, or a

cost of about $74 per ton HAP reduced (we estimate 1,759 tons HAP

reduced at this level). The incremental tons of HAP reduced is nearly

600 tons with the incremental cost of about $1,800 per ton HAP reduced.

Because we estimated that the cost of achieving the 25,000 kg/yr

and 40,000 kg/yr emissions limits would be considerably greater than

what we had projected for this rulemaking at proposal, we additionally

evaluated the next less stringent emission limit that was considered

and presented in the proposal, but not selected as one of our two

proposed options for limiting emissions from the entire category--a

60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent facility-wide emission limit. For the subset

of the category that excludes the four specific industry sectors, we

estimated that the 60,000 kg/yr level reduces the MIR to between 20-ina million and 50-in-a million and reduces cancer incidence by about

0.19 cases/yr. These risk reductions are estimated to be achieved at

total annualized cost savings of just over $1.3 million, or a savings

of $832/ton of HAP reduced (we estimate 1,594 tons HAP reduced at this

level).

To more fully analyze the implications of the various emission

limits, we calculated the overall and incremental annualized cost per

cancer case avoided. In this case, we compared the proposed 40,000 kg/

yr option and the next less-stringent alternative, the 60,000 kg/yr MC

equivalent emission limit. Given the overall reduction in incidence

from the baseline of 0.21 cancer cases/yr at the 40,000 kg/yr level and

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 13/38
the total annualized cost of $130,000, the overall cost per cancer case

avoided is about $620,000.\2\ For the 60,000 kg/yr level, there is an

estimated overall reduction in incidence of 0.19 cases/yr and a total

annualized cost savings of just over $1.3 million, resulting in an

overall savings of almost $7 million per cancer case avoided. While

these cost estimates for the overall reductions from current levels of

control appear to be modest (given the estimated cost savings of

intermediate control levels), the incremental reduction in emissions

and risk of going from the 60,000 kg/yr to the more stringent 40,000

kg/yr level are small and the corresponding cost-effectiveness

estimates of these incremental reductions are unacceptably high. The

incremental incidence avoided between the 40,000 kg/yr level and the

60,000 kg/yr level is 0.02 cases. The annualized incremental cost

between the two levels is about $1.5 million, with resulting

incremental cost per cancer case avoided of about $73 million. (Annual

operation and maintenance and annualized capital costs of $1.9 million

per year and an estimated costs savings for solvent recovery of $0.4

million per year.)

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

\2\ For comparison purposes, we estimated that compliance with

the requirements of the National Perchloroethylene Air Emission

Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities Final Rule (71 FR 42727, July

27, 2006), would result in an annualized cost of about $7 million to

achieve a cancer incidence reduction of 2 cancer cases per year.

This yields a cost of $3.5 million per cancer case avoided based on

the CalEPA unit risk estimate for PCE.

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

After considering revisions to the risk and cost estimates

presented at proposal, we believe that the 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent

emission limit for those halogenated solvent cleaning machines not

identified as being in use by one of the four sectors discussed in

Section III.A.3., above, protects public health with an ample margin of

safety and prevents adverse environmental effects. Specifically, the

60,000 kg/yr level reduces 90 percent of the HAP emissions reduced at

the 40,000 kg/yr level. The 60,000 kg/year emission limit achieves

reductions in MIR and cancer incidence that are similar to those

expected at the 25,000 kg/yr and 40,000 kg/yr emission levels. The

incremental reduction in emissions with a 40,000 kg/yr level instead of

60,000 kg/yr imposes an incremental cost of $1.5 million per year. The

incremental cost per ton of this reduction is roughly $9,000/ton.

Moreover, in comparing the 40,000 kg/yr and the 60,000 kg/yr emission

limits, the incremental cost per cancer case avoided, $73 million/case,

is substantial, supporting our conclusion that the $60,000 kg/yr

emission limit provides an ample margin of safety consistent with the

Benzene NESHAP.

3. Rationale for the Requirements for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning

Machines at Military Depot Maintenance Facilities

For halogenated solvent cleaning machines in use at military depot

maintenance facilities, the final rule sets a facility-wide emission

limit of 100,000 kg/yr (MC equivalent emissions). In addition, the 1994

NESHAP requirements remain applicable.

For halogenated solvent cleaning machines at these facilities that

are constructed or reconstructed after August 17, 2006, the final rule

revisions add to the previous 1994 NESHAP by requiring implementation

of the 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit upon the effective

date of this rule or upon startup, whichever occurs later.

We based this decision on comments received from one such facility

that we considered representative of these types of military facilities

that maintain and restore military weapons systems. They indicated an

increase in maintenance and restoration levels due to current worldwide

military activities and that they could not meet either of the proposed

emission limits within the proposed two-year compliance period. In

additional comments in response to the NODA, and in subsequent meetings

with the Agency, they indicated that they could meet the 100,000 kg/yr

emission limit within a three-year compliance timeframe. We then

projected that implementation of the 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent

emission limit will reduce the MIR from halogenated solvent cleaning

machines associated with a military depot maintenance facility from

about six-in-a-million to about three-in-a-million with an estimated

reduction in annual cancer incidence of 0.002 cancer cases per year. An

analysis of the costs for only this facility which was based on

information from the 2002 NEI shows that the annual cost effectiveness

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 14/38
of complying with this limit results in a cost savings of about $625/

ton with annualized cost savings of approximately $55,761. Therefore,

we believe that a requirement for these facilities to meet a 100,000

kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit is technically feasible, provides an

annual and long-term cost savings, provides an ample margin of safety

to protect public health and prevents adverse environmental effects.

4. Rationale for Our Decisions Regarding Continuous Web Cleaners and

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Machines at Narrow Tube Manufacturing and

Aerospace Facilities

The requirements set forth in this final rule are not applicable to

continuous web cleaning machines, halogenated solvent cleaning machines

that are associated with the narrow tubing manufacturing industry, and

aerospace manufacturing and maintenance industry and facilities. The

requirements of the 1994 NESHAP and its subsequent amendments (where

relevant) remain applicable to all the continuous web and halogenated

solvent cleaning machines associated with the above-noted facilities.

We received comments from these three sectors on the proposal, in

response to the NODA, and in subsequent meetings with

[[Page 25146]]

representatives of these industries. They submitted information that

stressed the unique nature of their cleaning operations, the technical

infeasibility, the uncertainty of our original cost estimates, the

processes involved, including review of their process changes by other

federal agencies such as FDA and FAA (see Section IV.A. for additional

discussion), and the difficulty they would experience in complying with

the proposed emission limits within the proposed timeframe. Based on

new information they provided in response to the NODA, including new

cost information, we re-analyzed the costs for each of these three

sectors and estimated the annual cost effectiveness of complying with

emission limits they provided in comments.

For the Aerospace sector, we estimated an MIR of 30-in-a-million

and an annual cancer incidence of 0.066 at their baseline emission

level. We then projected that implementation of the 100,000 kg/yr MC

equivalent limit (the maximum reduction we discussed in the proposal)

would reduce the MIR from halogenated solvent cleaning machines

associated with this sector to about 20-in-a-million with a reduction

to their annual cancer incidence to about 0.03 cancer cases annually.

Our revised cost estimate showed a cost effectiveness of $2,000/ton

with a total annualized cost of nearly $630,000.

For the narrow tube manufacturers, we estimated an MIR of 70-in-amillion with an annual cancer incidence of 0.08 at their baseline level

of emissions. Based on comments from this industry indicating that they

could reasonably accomplish a 10 percent reduction in their current

emission levels within a three-year compliance time, we developed risk

and cost estimates for that level of reduction. We have estimated that

the MIR would decrease to approximately 60-in-a-million with very

little change expected in the annual cancer incidence. The annual cost

effectiveness for complying with an overall 10 percent reduction in

total emissions limit would be a cost of over $3,600/ton with total

annualized costs of nearly $700,000.

For the continuous web cleaners, we estimated a baseline MIR risk

level of about 30-in-a-million with an annual cancer incidence of 0.03

cases. Comments from this industry suggested they could achieve an 80

percent overall control efficiency compared to their current emission

levels, within a three-year compliance period. The current NESHAP limit

requires a 70 percent overall control efficiency. To achieve the 80

percent overall efficiency, facilities would be required to reduce

emissions by 33 percent ((1-70%) - (1-80%) / (1-70%) = 33%). We

developed risk and cost estimates for that level of reduction. We have

estimated that under this scenario, the MIR would decrease to

approximately 20-in-a-million with and the annual cancer incidence

would decrease to 0.02 cases annually. The annual cost effectiveness of

complying with the 80 percent overall emission control efficiency rate

is over $3,400/ton with a total annualized costs of over $600,000.

In summary, we are adopting no changes to the 1994 NESHAP, under

CAA Section 112(f) for the halogenated solvent cleaning machines used

by the above-noted specific industry sectors (i.e., aerospace, narrow

tube manufacturers, and the facilities that use continuous web cleaning

machines) because the current level of emissions control called for by

the existing NESHAP both reduces risk to acceptable levels and provides

an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Further, additional

standards are not necessary to prevent adverse environmental effects.

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 15/38
The finding regarding an ``ample margin of safety'' is based on a

consideration of the relatively small reductions in health risks likely

to result from the feasible emission reductions we evaluated, the

additional costs required to achieve further control, the lack of

technically feasible control options for these sectors, and the time

required to comply with any requirements.

C. What is the compliance schedule?

In this final rule, in accordance with CAA section 112(i)(3), we

are promulgating a compliance deadline of three years from the

effective date of this final rule for all existing halogenated solvent

cleaning machines and for all existing halogenated solvent cleaning

machines at military depot maintenance facilities. Facilities described

in Section III.A.3 above are not subject to further requirements beyond

the 1994 NESHAP.

At proposal, we determined that CAA section 112(i) was the

controlling provision that addresses compliance deadlines for existing

sources with regard to standards promulgated under CAA sections

112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2). See 71 FR 47684-86. We hereby incorporate our

discussion by reference. In the NODA, we asked for comments on the

issue of whether a two year compliance deadline was sufficient time to

comply with the co-proposed facility-wide emission limits. We received

significant comments on this compliance deadline issue.

We are persuaded by the commenters representing the general

population that use halogenated solvent cleaning machines that existing

sources will need more than 2 years to comply with the final revised

standards. Affected facilities would have to plan their control

strategy, purchase and install the control device(s), and subsequently,

bring the control device(s) online. We, therefore, believe that for the

remaining halogenated solvent cleaning facilities, this final

compliance deadline of three years is more reasonable and realistic

than the proposed two year compliance deadline.

D. What is the final decision on the applicable unit risk value?

At proposal, we explained that the Agency's IRIS health assessment

for PCE is currently being revised. Therefore, we requested comment on

the use of the CalEPA URE,\3\ the OPPTS URE,\4\ or other values in

deriving the PCE emission limit for the final rule (71 FR 47680). We

received comments both supporting and opposing our use of the CalEPA

URE for PCE.

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

\3\ California Department of Health Services (CDHS), Health

Effects of Tetrachloroethylene (PCE), Berkeley, CA, April 1992.

(Available in the rulemaking docket.)

\4\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cleaner Technologies

Substitutes Assessment: Professional Fabricare Processes (EPA 744-B98-001), June 1998. (Available at http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/garment/CTSA/.

)

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

For those situations where a particular chemical does not have a

cancer potency value in IRIS, we have established a prioritization

process for accessing other health assessment information (as described

in our ``Residual Risk Report to Congress'' on pages 56 through 58).

This hierarchy includes peer reviewed cancer potency values from EPA as

well as from other agencies that conduct chemical carcinogenicity

assessments such as the California Environmental Protection Agency

(CalEPA). See also our responses to comments on this issue in the final

Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP (70 FR 19998-20000, (April 15, 2005)). In

this final rulemaking, we have chosen to use the CalEPA URE in

preference to the OPPTS value for a number of reasons. CalEPA's PCE

cancer unit risk value was derived using two different approaches for

estimating the metabolized dose in humans, whereas the OPPTS value

incorporated a single model of metabolism. Additionally, while the

CalEPA approach allowed for the consideration of variability and

uncertainty, the OPPTS approach did not. We have used both the CalEPA

and OPPTS UREs for PCE in the risk

[[Page 25147]]

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 16/38
characterizations for the dry cleaning residual risk rulemaking (71 FR

42723) and for this rulemaking (71 FR 47670; see also the risk document

in the rulemaking docket). However, for the purposes of this

rulemaking, we have chosen to use the CalEPA URE to implement the

facility emission limits. Explicit consideration of variability and

uncertainty is more consistent with EPA's current approach for

conducting risk assessments. EPA also uses the CalEPA URE in the 1999

National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/

), in Superfund cleanup decisions, and in EPA's Air

Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library (available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_main.html

; dose-response values in

Appendix C at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/data/risk/vol_1/appendix_c.pdf

.

We have the authority to revisit (and revise, if necessary) any

rulemaking if there is sufficient evidence that changes within the

affected industry or significant improvements to the science suggest

that the public might experience significantly more or less risk than

estimated in the risk assessment prepared for the rulemaking (See CAA

section 301). In particular, it may become necessary at some time in

the future to revise the facility emission limits if the pending IRIS

assessments result in significant changes to the UREs for PCE, TCE, or

MC.

Additionally, while we have chosen to use the CalEPA URE for PCE

for implementing this rule, this should not be interpreted as a

precedent for all future rules. As was stated earlier, in the dry

cleaning residual risk rulemaking (71 FR 42723) and in this rulemaking,

we used both the CalEPA and OPPTS values to characterize the risk. When

there is uncertainty, it is EPA's preference to provide a range of

values. However, for the purposes of this rulemaking, a single value

was needed to implement the facility emission limits. EPA's choice of

the CalEPA value does not mean that this is the only value to be

considered while the EPA IRIS assessment is pending.

E. What is EPA's finding on the CAA section 112(d)(6) review

requirements?

We stated in the proposal that in the technology review under CAA

section 112(d)(6) we did not identify any additional control

technologies beyond those that are already in widespread use within the

source category (e.g., freeboard refrigeration devices, extended

freeboards, working mode and downtime covers). We concluded that the

proposed rule changes would satisfy both CAA section 112(d)(6) and

112(f)(2). See 71 FR 47685.

Since the August 17, 2006 proposal, we have not identified any

significant developments in practices, processes, or control

technologies. We have discovered, however, that affected industries are

researching the development of halogenated solvent cleaning machines

and alternate cleaning technologies. At some time in the future these

technologic developments could lead to significant technologies

relevant to the CAA section 112(d)(6) analysis, but we understand that

to date the engineering and implementation of such technology has not

been proven to satisfy the performance needs of the industry coupled

with the low-emission directives of the agency. We therefore conclude

that the final facility-wide emissions limits we are promulgating today

satisfy our obligations under both CAA sections 112(d)(6) and 112

(f)(2).

IV. Responses to Significant Comments

A. Significant Comments on the Proposal

During the public comment period, EPA received significant

comments, new data, and information concerning program elements for

which we specifically sought public comments. We received favorable and

unfavorable comments on both proposed emission limits. Commenters

provided substantial information on the use of the methylene chloride

equivalency equation. We received significant comments on the

implementation of the emission limits from commenters representing

narrow tube manufacturing facilities, aerospace manufacturing and

maintenance facilities, military depot maintenance facilities,

facilities that use multiple solvent cleaning machines, and facilities

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 17/38
that use continuous web cleaning machines.

All of the comments, information, and data submitted by commenters

are compiled in the Response to Comments document available in the Air

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009. Some of the more significant

comments are discussed below.

1. Emission Limit Option 1 or Option 2

Comment: While four commenters supported the proposed Option 1

(40,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit), other commenters

encouraged EPA to set relative standards. Another commenter, an

association of state air program administrators, believed that Option 2

(25,000 kg/yr of MC equivalent emission limit) still presented

unacceptably high risks; but noted that it was preferable to Option 1.

Three commenters supported our proposed Option 2. According to the

commenters, Option 2 would provide significant emissions reductions and

greater protection of public health, safety, and welfare. In addition

to lowering the potential cancer and non-cancer chronic health risk

associated with exposure to the three HAPs, the additional reductions

of trichloroethylene (TCE) under Option 2 would likely augment the

State's efforts to reach attainment with the 8-hour ozone standard

since TCE is identified as an ozone precursor.

One commenter recognized the reductions in the number of people

exposed to cancer risk and the capital costs between Option 1 and the

more stringent Option 2. The commenter stated that under Option 2 the

numbers of affected sources are greater than the number of affected

sources under Option 1, but that EPA determined that those affected

sources complying with Option 2 would still save money because the

annual solvent savings were projected to exceed the annualized capital

and operating costs. The commenter added that even at a financial cost,

Option 2 would be warranted, and that given the financial savings,

Option 2 was the only reasonable choice. One commenter stated that the

proposed facility-wide emission limits would leave source owners only

two compliance options: (1) Establish internal production restrictions

or (2) install add-on capture and control equipment to ensure operating

flexibility. Another commenter requested that EPA exempt batch cold

cleaning machines operating with capture and control devices that are

subject to federally-enforceable monitoring conditions in a Title V

permit.

Response: As stated in Section II of the Preamble, we presented and

discussed our evaluation of four other emission limits that would

reduce residual risk. These emission limits were 100,000 kg/yr, 60,000

kg/yr, 15,000 kg/yr and 6,000 kg/yr (71 FR 47680-81). In this final

rule, as stated in Section II.A. of the Preamble, we are promulgating

the 60,000 kg/yr facility-wide MC equivalent emission limit. EPA's risk

assessment for the proposal and an updated risk assessment for the

final rule using data from EPA's 2002 NEI database show that the

maximum individual risk (MIR) and population risks associated with the

majority of halogenated solvent cleaning machines would be reduced by

adopting the 60,000 kg/yr MC-equivalent emission limit. Based on the

more recent assessment using the 2002 NEI, the MIR

[[Page 25148]]

would be reduced from 100-in-a-million to between 20 and 50-in-amillion and the total number of people with risks greater than 1-in-amillion would also be reduced from 4,000,000 people to between 500,000

and 1,000,000. Our cost analyses at proposal and the more recent

revisions to the cost estimates based on the 2002 NEI show that these

emission and risk reductions are technically feasible within the threeyear time for compliance, and facilities would experience a cost

savings implementing the emission limit. Therefore, we believe that the

60,000 kg/yr facility-wide emission limit (expressed as MC equivalent

emissions) applied to the halogenated solvent cleaning machines, except

where noted, provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public's

health because it significantly reduces cancer risks, prevents adverse

environmental effects, and given the level of the risk reductions, is

technically feasible and can be accomplished at reasonable costs. EPA

is not exempting batch cold cleaning machines that operate with capture

and control devices that are subject to Title V permitting

requirements.

2. Equation for MC Equivalents

Comment: Two commenters supported EPA's toxicity-weighted approach

for calculating the facility-wide annual emission limits for affected

sources, except where otherwise noted, that use more than one of the

three HAPs subject to the proposed Subpart T residual risk rule. This

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 18/38
toxicity-weighted calculation was proposed as Equations 1 and 9 in the

Preamble, and proposed 40 CFR 63.471(a)(2), respectively. In our August

17, 2006 proposal, EPA requested comment on this methodology (71 FR

47675). Another commenter was concerned about the use of the methylene

chloride equivalent. The commenter stated that the use of this term was

somewhat misleading because rather than a toxic equivalent, this

methodology reflects a weighted-emission approach using toxicityweighted emission rates. The commenter further stated that while EPA

conservatively added the cancer and noncancer toxicity-weighted

emissions rates, the scaling factors we used were simply the ratio of

the cancer unit-risk estimates and noncancer reference concentrations

multiplied by the post-MACT emission rate or exposure level. The

commenter also stated that because EPA did not specifically conduct

toxicological comparisons (common mode of action and metabolites and

possible synergistic interactions among the components of the mixture)

for PCE, TCE and MC, we should be careful not to use the term

``methylene chloride equivalent'' as a ``toxic equivalent,'' because

the latter is a specific term associated with a supporting body of

literature and a documented methodology. Another commenter noted that

because the current recordkeeping and annual reports requirements,

under 40 CFR 63.467 and 63.468 (f-g), were inapplicable to batch cold

cleaning machines, our proposed methodology may not be suitable for all

batch cold cleaning machines and requested flexibility in calculating

emissions so long as the alternate methodology was scientifically sound

and documented.

Response: In this final rule, we are finalizing as proposed the use

of Equation 1 (and Equation 9) to calculate the MC equivalent for

implementing the 60,000 kg/yr emission limit or the 100,000 kg/yr

emission limit. EPA believes this methodology will facilitate the use

of an annual emissions limit for multiple HAPs and allow flexibility in

reducing the facility-wide emissions to meet this emissions limit. For

cold batch cleaning machines at area sources, the requirements in the

final rule do not apply.

3. Use of CalEPA or OPPTS URE for Implementation of the Emission Limit

Comment: Some commenters that use large halogenated solvent

cleaning machines recommended that EPA not promulgate either Option 1

or 2 of the proposed rule, but rather defer promulgation of a final

rule until completion of the IRIS re-evaluations of the URE for PCE.

One commenter believed that EPA included two different facilitywide annual emission limits for PCE because the IRIS URE was not

available and will not be available before 2008. The commenter

supported the use of CalEPA URE because it was clearly more health

protective and more appropriate than the OPPTS URE value.

One commenter stated several reasons why EPA should use the CalEPA

URE: (1) EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library recommended

the use of the CalEPA URE for PCE, (2) the EPA Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards (OAQPS) recommended the use of the CalEPA URE in

situations in which there are no IRIS data available (see EPA's

``Prioritization of Data Sources for Chronic Exposure'' Web site), and

(3) OAQPS used the CalEPA URE for PCE when conducting the 1999 risk

assessment for the National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment. They believed

that EPA has an established precedent for use of the CalEPA URE and

recommended that it be used for this residual risk standard as well.

Three commenters, one identifying itself as operating two

continuous web cleaning lines in the world's largest integrated

production of aluminum and aluminum semi-fabricated products stated

that the two PCE UREs differ by a factor of ten and that EPA's

selection of the applicable URE would obviously have a significant

impact on control options available to their facility. They expressed

concern that EPA would finalize an emissions limit by selecting an

inappropriate URE and prior to completion of the IRIS reassessment for

PCE. According to the commenter, the fact that the final IRIS URE ``may

be different from both the CalEPA and OPPTS values'', means that

inappropriate or unnecessary emission reduction strategies could be

required as a result of EPA's promulgating the wrong PCE facility-wide

limit in a final rule.

Another commenter suggested that EPA delay promulgation of this

final rule until completion of IRIS assessments for PCE and TCE. One

commenter stated that while EPA referenced both the OPPTS and the

CalEPA UREs, there was little or no mention made of other URE studies

conducted for PCE which would potentially indicate a different URE. The

commenter stated the same is believed to be true regarding the URE for

TCE.

Response: EPA has explained that when a particular chemical does

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 19/38
not have a cancer potency value in IRIS, we have established a

prioritization process for assessing other health assessment

information (as described in our ``Residual Risk Report to Congress''

on pages 56 through 58). This hierarchy includes peer reviewed cancer

potency values from EPA as well as from other agencies that conduct

chemical carcinogenicity assessments such as CalEPA. See also our

response to comments on this issue in the final Coke Oven Batteries

NESHAP (70 FR 19998-20000, (April 15, 2005)).

Because we have not yet issued a final IRIS health assessment for

PCE, we are using the CalEPA unit risk estimate (URE) of 5.9 X

10-6 (ug/m3)

-1 to implement the

emission limit for PCE in this final rule. See section III.D. of this

Preamble for further discussion of our decision to use the CalEPA

cancer URE.

We also have the authority to revisit (and revise, if necessary)

any rulemaking if sufficient evidence becomes available that changes

within the affected industry or significant improvements to the

underlying science suggest that the public is exposed to significantly

more or less risk than

[[Page 25149]]

estimated in the risk assessment prepared for this rulemaking (See CAA

section 301). See also Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for

Sterilization Facilities Residual Risk Rules (71 FR 17712, 17715,

(April 7, 2006). In particular, it may become necessary at some time in

the future to revise the facility emission limits if the pending IRIS

assessments result in significant changes to the UREs for PCE, TCE, or

MC.

Additionally, while we have chosen to use the CalEPA URE for PCE

for implementing this rule, this should not be interpreted as a

precedent for all future rules. As was stated earlier, in the dry

cleaning residual risk rulemaking (71 FR 42723) and in this rulemaking,

we used both the CalEPA and OPPTS values to characterize the risk. When

there is uncertainty, it is EPA's preference to provide a range of

values. However, for the purposes of this rulemaking, a single value

was needed to implement the facility emission limits. EPA's choice of

the CalEPA value does not mean that this is the only value to be

considered while the EPA IRIS assessment is pending.

4. Compliance Deadline

Comment: The majority of facilities that use halogenated solvent

cleaning machines suggested that EPA should allow at least three years

for existing sources to comply with the new requirements. Two

commenters contended that EPA should be consistent with the HON rule

\5\ and provide affected facilities three years after the effective

date of the promulgated standard to comply. Another commenter stated

that the narrow tubing manufacturers could not comply with the proposed

compliance period because compliance would require between one and two

years to evaluate non-regulated solvents and an additional two to three

years to obtain FDA and air permit approvals and implement the

necessary equipment modifications. All commenters stated that sources

subject to this new rule would need time to evaluate their compliance

options; conduct feasibility testing (for solvent substitution) to

ensure they can still achieve customer specifications; and design,

build, and/or install any equipment or facility modifications

potentially required. They stated that our proposed two year compliance

deadline would be insufficient time for the regulated sources to

comply. Two commenters stated that the proposed two year compliance

time frame was not sufficient time for the installation of vacuum-tovacuum machines. The commenters stated that even if the technology

existed, that in order to meet the proposed two year compliance

deadline, they would be required to take the following measures: (1)

Conduct initial research and development effort to determine a control

strategy; (2) perform a pilot study using the selected control

strategy; (3) demonstrate to their customers that the resulting product

meets contract specifications; (4) get acceptance by their customers

that the change meets contract specifications; (5) design engineering

work to develop the selected equipment and apply for air pollution

control and other permits; (6) obtain permits to install the selected

equipment; (7) order the equipment; (8) fabricate the equipment; (9)

prepare the shop floor for installation of equipment; (10) receive and

install the equipment; and (11) place the equipment in operation.

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

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 20/38
\5\ National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air

Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing

Industry, (71 FR 76603) (December 21, 2006)).

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

Three other commenters believed that the proposed two years

compliance schedule did not provide sufficient time for the affected

facilities to fully assess the impacts and develop approved

alternatives. The commenters requested an extension of the compliance

period. They stated that EPA has authority to allow up to three years

for affected facilities to comply and that permitting authorities have

authority to grant an additional one year for compliance purposes,

under CAA section 112(i).

A large military depot maintenance facility commented that the

proposed compliance time allowed in the proposed rule was inadequate.

They also agreed with the Preamble discussions as to whether EPA could

allow up to three years for existing sources to comply with the

proposed limits. The commenter recommended that EPA allow a three-year

compliance deadline.

Two commenters supported EPA's proposed two-year compliance

deadline. One of the commenters, however, pointed out that existing

solvent cleaning machines could receive a one year extension of time

from permitting authorities. The commenter believed that the

Congressional intent behind the compliance deadlines in CAA section

112(f) was to insure an expedited compliance schedule (90 days with a

possible two-year extension) for controlling emissions from facilities

that result in unacceptable risk levels. Two States provided comments

supporting the proposed two year compliance deadline and one commenter

advocated a 90-day compliance period.

Response: In this final rule, in accordance with CAA section

112(i)(3), EPA is promulgating a three-year compliance deadline from

the effective date of this rule for all the existing affected sources.

As explained in Section III.C. of the Preamble, we believe that CAA

section 112(i) is the controlling provision addressing compliance

deadlines for existing sources with regard to standards promulgated

under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2). EPA believes this will give

owners or operators of solvent cleaning machines the necessary time to

evaluate technologies for controlling emissions and possible

alternatives to halogenated HAP solvent cleaning.

Comment: One commenter stated that proposed Sec. 63.460(i) would

allow sources that only have existing halogenated solvent cleaning

machines two years to comply, but if they construct or reconstruct a

single machine after August 17, 2006, they would lose the two-year

compliance period. The commenter recommended that any facility that has

existing halogenated solvent cleaning machines and that exceeds the

proposed facility wide emission limits should be allowed two years from

the date of the final rule to comply with the standard, even if one or

more halogenated solvent cleaning machines are constructed or

reconstructed after August 17, 2006.

Another commenter stated that if the Agency finalized the proposed

rule, the compliance schedule should be amended to (1) Require new

facilities constructed after the date of promulgation to be in

compliance upon startup; (2) consider new facilities constructed prior

to the date of promulgation to be existing facilities; (3) allow

existing degreasing facilities that installed new equipment after the

date of proposal, but prior to the date of promulgation, ten years to

come into compliance with any new requirements consistent with CAA

section 112(i)(7), and (4) allow the maximum amount of time possible

for existing Halogenated Solvent Cleaning facilities to come into

compliance. This commenter alluded to a three-year timeframe. The

commenter cited one example of where the installation of new equipment

at an existing facility would require additional or redesigned floor

space and thus would require additional time for compliance.

Response: As stated in the earlier response, and in Section III.C.

of this Preamble, we believe that it is reasonable to conclude that CAA

section 112(i) is the controlling provision

[[Page 25150]]

addressing compliance deadlines for existing sources with regard to

standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2). Thus,

in this final rule, in accordance with CAA section 112(i)(3), EPA is

promulgating a three-year compliance deadline from the effective date

of this rule for existing sources. Further, for purposes of today's

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 21/38
rule, existing sources are affected facilities (as defined in Sec.

63.461) on which construction or reconstruction began on or before

August 17, 2006. New sources are affected facilities that commence

construction or reconstruction after August 17, 2006. This is

consistent with CAA Section 112(i)(1)-(3). Additionally,

``construction'' and ``reconstruction,'' are defined at 40 CFR 63.2.

However, changes to the emission controls at a facility made to comply

with existing source standards in today's rule do not trigger the

reconstruction threshold.

5. Applicability of Control Requirements

Comment: One commenter that uses continuous web cleaning machines

stated that it had installed two carbon adsorption devices (CAD) to

address the TCE reductions required by the 1994 NESHAP. According to

the commenter, even an upgrade of the systems would likely not enable

the facilities to achieve either proposed emissions limit. The

commenter suggested that for facilities that use continuous web

cleaning machines, EPA should evaluate a range of emission reduction

limits. The commenter stated that this method would have been

consistent with the alternative standards set for the continuous web

cleaning machines by the 1994 NESHAP.

Response: In light of this and similar comments by the aerospace

and narrow tubing industries, EPA issued a NODA to gather specific data

on the technical feasibility and costs of complying with the proposed

emission limits, if feasible, and the period of time required to comply

with the proposed emissions limit (71 FR 75184, (December 14, 2006)).

EPA has re-evaluated the technical feasibility, costs and other factors

that relate to facilities operating continuous web cleaning machines.

Consequently, in this final rule, we are not promulgating any facilitywide emission limits for facilities that operate continuous web

cleaning machines, facilities that operate halogenated solvent cleaning

machines for the aerospace manufacturing and maintenance industry, and

the narrow tubing manufacturing industry.

Comment: Numerous commenters from both the narrow tubing

manufacturing industry that use MC, PCE and TCE, and airline

maintenance facilities and aerospace industry that use PCE stated that

switching to TCE or MC would be an unsuitable compliance option. They

stated that facilities have procedural requirements for the higher

vapor temperature of PCE and that TCE and MC's vapor temperature is

inadequate for proper cleaning. The commenters stated that many

original equipment manufacturers have not approved the use of

alternative degreasing solvents. The commenters also stated that

changing solvents involved a rigorous approval process by the original

equipment manufacturers and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

in order to ensure that safety and quality criteria are met. The

commenters stated that such an approval process could take more than

two years.

The commenter also stated that EPA's proposed retrofit options for

freeboard ratios, working mode covers and freeboard refrigeration

devices are not expected to be sufficient to enable the facility to

comply with the proposed facility-wide emission limits of the proposed

rule. The commenter also stated that there are few manufacturers of

vacuum-to-vacuum degreasing machines and they were not aware of this

technology effectively cleaning parts of specific types and sizes.

According to the commenter, similar facilities that installed the

technology incurred costs of over $1 million with new annualized costs

of approximately $80,000 per year. The commenter was concerned that

compliance with the proposed standards would be achieved by using

expensive technology, that has high capital costs and operating costs

and that may not be proven effective or reliable for the operations of

subject facilities.

Response: In response to this comment and certain comments

discussed below, EPA issued a NODA (71 FR 75184, (December 14, 2006))

to gather more information pertinent to the halogenated solvent

machines used by the aerospace industry, narrow tubing manufacturing

industry, and the facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines.

Responses to the NODA provided significant data and information that

have led EPA to determine that it is both technologically infeasible

and not cost effective for these industries to implement any further

emission controls or requirements. Consequently, as stated in Section

III.A.3., of the Preamble, we are not promulgating any facility-wide

emission limits for halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by the

aerospace manufacturing and maintenance industry, the narrow tubing

manufacturing industry and for continuous web cleaning machines.

Comment: Two commenters associated with the aerospace industry

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 22/38
stated that the FAA, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) guidelines for safety and quality control

often dictate the types of solvents and materials that may be used in

aerospace operations. According to the commenters, solvent cleaning

criteria determined the quality of adhesion between aircraft assemblies

and components and the various coatings, primers, sealants, and

adhesives later applied to their surfaces, and improper degreasing

could cause loss of coating adhesion and ultimate failure of specific

aircraft component parts. The commenters also stated that they had

explored solvent alternatives such as aqueous cleaners, and had

encountered incompatibilities with FAA guidelines, such as inability to

meet the degree of cleaning required, incompatibility of the parts

being cleaned with the cleaning solution, longer required cleaning

time, and problems associated with moisture left on parts being

cleaned. The commenter stated that these regulatory and product

specifications frequently dictated or otherwise limited aerospace

cleaning options to PCE or TCE. However, some aerospace facilities

maintain their PCE cleaning capacity because certain, very specific

aerospace parts cannot be processed with MC or alternative solvents.

Response: In response to this comment, as earlier explained, EPA

issued a NODA (71 FR 75184, (December 14, 2006)) to gather more

information pertinent to the halogenated solvents cleaning machines

used by the aerospace industry, narrow tubing manufacturing industry,

and the facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines. Responses

to the NODA provided significant information that has led EPA to

conclude that it is both technologically infeasible and not cost

effective for the above-noted facilities to implement any further

emission controls or requirements. (See Section III.A.3. of the

Preamble on costs of compliance). EPA is also persuaded that some

halogenated solvent cleaning processes for the aerospace and narrow

tubing industry are controlled by FAA, FDA, the NRC guidelines, and

from protocols of original equipment manufacturers. Therefore, EPA is

concluding in this final rule that solvent switching from PCE or TCE to

MC may not be a viable option in some instances for the aerospace

industry.

[[Page 25151]]

Consequently, as stated earlier in Section III.A.3., of this Preamble,

EPA is not promulgating facility-wide emission limits for halogenated

solvent machines used by the aerospace manufacturing and maintenance

industry, the narrow tubing manufacturing industry and for continuous

web cleaning machines.

Comment: Commenters from the narrow tube manufacturing industry

stated that they use ``one of a kind'' machines in their degreasing

operations. They described these machines as very large, some with

dimensions approaching 110 ft. long by 10 ft. deep and 42 inches wide,

with a capacity of 7,000 gallons of solvent. According to the

commenters, these machines also heat the solvent, usually TCE, to its

boiling point while condenser coils prevent evaporation by forming a

cold air blanket over the cleaning machine in order to limit emissions.

In addition, they explained that these machines are covered when not in

use.

They also stated that the installation of vacuum-to-vacuum cleaning

machines is not a feasible option because of their products' sizes and

the lack of engineering information to establish whether machines of

such size can be engineered and produced. They stated that EPA's

proposed requirements would require them to design, obtain permits,

develop and install these systems within two years.

Response: In response to this comment, as earlier explained, we

issued a NODA (71 FR 75184, (December 14, 2006)) to gather more

information pertinent to the halogenated solvent cleaning machines used

by the aerospace industry, narrow tubing manufacturing industry, and

the facilities using continuous web cleaning machines. Responses to the

NODA provided significant information that has led EPA to determine

that it is both technologically infeasible and not cost effective for

the above-noted facilities to implement any further emission controls

or requirements. EPA is also persuaded that it may be quite difficult

for the above-noted industries to reduce emissions through chemical or

physical means and technology applications to the levels required by

our final promulgated emissions limits. Accordingly, due to the costs

associated with compliance, technical feasibility, and other factors,

EPA has determined that the current MACT requirements provided for the

narrow tubing manufacturing industry both reduce HAP emissions to

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 23/38
levels that both pose acceptable risk and protect public health with an

ample margin of safety. As stated earlier in Section III.A.3., of the

Preamble, EPA is not promulgating facility-wide emission limits for

halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by the narrow tubing

industries.

Comment: Two commenters stated that switching from PCE and/or TCE

to MC (indicated as being lower risk) as a compliance alternative under

the proposed revisions would likely result in an increased danger to

public health and, more specifically, potentially increase the danger

from employee exposure to MC emissions. The commenter stated that

because employee exposure to MC is specifically regulated by the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), switching to MC

would be an error. According to the commenter, this is because

applicable OSHA regulations would limit and/or restrict MC and would

lead to increased employer costs, a fact the commenter believed EPA did

not consider. One commenter stated that some halogenated solvent

cleaning machines may have the potential for undetected fugitive

emissions. The commenter added that the necessary monitoring for

adequate employee protection from overexposure to MC would be far more

expensive, more extensive, and more difficult to implement than

monitoring for TCE.

Response: Before proposal, EPA was aware of the requirements of the

Occupational Health and Safety Administration concerning worker safety

when MC is used. 29 CFR part 1910, which are the applicable OSHA

regulations, require employers to make an initial determination of each

employee's exposure to MC. If the employer determines that employees

are exposed below the action level, employers are required to make a

record of the determination. Conversely, if the employees are exposed

to MC above the action levels, employers are required to perform

exposure monitoring.

In addition, EPA did not consider any costs associated with MC

monitoring at proposal. EPA believes, however, that a facility would

not incur costs if MC emissions do not exceed the OSHA levels. If a

facility experiences worker exposure of MC emissions over the OSHA

level, the facility incurs costs to develop a control plan for fugitive

emissions and possibly implement an employee medical monitoring plan.

To account for the possibility of increased costs, we reduced the

number of units assumed to use solvent switching.

6. Costs Associated With Compliance

Comment: Seven commenters, from the aerospace and narrow tube

manufacturing sectors, stated that EPA had underestimated its cost

basis for vacuum-to-vacuum technology in the proposed rule. One

commenter stated that because EPA's estimation used the costs for small

halogenated solvent cleaning machines and applied the credit for cost

reduction from recovered solvent to the large halogenated solvent

cleaning machines with large amounts of recovered solvent, the estimate

erroneously yielded a false return on investment. The commenter stated

that discussions with manufacturers of available vacuum-to-vacuum units

suggested costs approximately five times higher than the assumptions

used by EPA for each unit, and this was assuming that the manufacturers

could develop scaled-up units suitable for narrow tubing manufacturers.

The commenter stated that because the larger size of their products

would require construction of the new unit while maintaining operation,

facilities would need to undergo building expansion. The commenter

anticipated that installation costs, including building and required

utilities and infrastructure, would likely be approximately three times

the equipment cost. According to the commenter, assuming the technology

was successful, EPA's capital cost basis was approximately fifteen

times below its likely cost range. The commenter further stated that

EPA's assumption of 97 percent solvent recovery was unlikely with

regard to hypothetical future large units that would require storage

and movement of solvent between storage tanks, solvent cleaning

machines and other ancillary equipment. The commenter concluded that

EPA's assumptions of the project payback were unrealistic both for

large operations, whose capital cost was underestimated, and for small

operations, whose solvent recovery payback would be smaller than the

average figures used in the analysis.

Response: In response to this comment, as explained earlier, EPA

issued a NODA (71 FR 75184, (December 14, 2006)) to gather more

information on the costs of complying with the proposed standards by

the aerospace industry, narrow tubing manufacturing industry, and the

facilities that use continuous web cleaning machines. Responses to the

NODA provided significant information that has led EPA to determine

that it is both technologically infeasible and not cost effective for

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 24/38
the above-noted facilities to implement any further emission controls

or requirements.

As earlier stated, EPA is also persuaded that some solvent cleaning

processes for the aerospace and narrow tubing industry are controlled

by protocols from the FAA, FDA, NRC and

[[Page 25152]]

from protocols to satisfy original equipment manufacturers'

specifications. As earlier stated, EPA has also concluded in this final

rule that solvent switching from PCE or TCE to MC may not be a viable

option in some instances for the aerospace industry. As also explained

earlier in Section III.B. of the Preamble, EPA has re-analyzed the cost

assumptions made at proposal for the aerospace industry separate from

the halogenated solvent cleaning machines that are covered by this

final rule, and has determined that due to costs, technical

feasibility, and other factors requiring additional controls, would not

be feasible at this time. Consequently, as stated earlier in section

III.A.3 of the Preamble, we are not promulgating facility-wide emission

limits for halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by the narrow

tubing and aerospace manufacturing and maintenance industries.

Comment: Commenters that use continuous web cleaning machines

stated that EPA's analysis of the technology and cost impacts of the

two proposed emission limits failed to consider the impacts on

continuous web machines. The commenters stated that while EPA

identified numerous compliance options, solvent switching from PCE to

TCE or MC would be the sole compliance option for continuous web

cleaning machines. The commenters further stated that EPA was correct

to conclude that neither retrofits nor machine replacement would be an

available compliance option for continuous web cleaners; however, the

commenters stated that ``EPA should not have concluded that solvent

switching would be an available option for continuous web cleaners.''

The commenters further stated that switching from TCE to MC is not an

available option because ``MC reacts with chemically active metals such

as aluminum.'' The commenters also stated that MC is incompatible with

some of the gaskets and seals in pumps, ports and manifold systems. The

commenters added that MC is less stable as a continuous web cleaning

solvent and would require additional monitoring and probably additional

stabilization control systems. Additionally, the commenters stated that

MC is not readily adsorbed by the carbon in carbon adsorption devices

and, as such, solvent switching would require reconfiguration and

possibly rebuilding of the carbon adsorption devices. According to the

commenters, MC requires longer dwell time in the carbon beds, which

would in turn require a greater carbon surface area and larger carbon

filtration systems. The commenters also stated that quantities of TCE

would react with MC and that facilities would need to conduct a

complete purging of systems in order to prevent cross contamination.

The commenters further stated that such purging would include the

removal of significant production line components, which would lead to

increased compliance costs.

The commenters also stated that EPA estimated a 29 percent increase

in solvent consumption if switching from TCE to MC. The commenters,

however, expected much higher increases. The commenters explained that

because steel that is placed in cleaning machines is slightly heated

above ambient temperature, any slight temperature elevation would cause

MC to vaporize more readily than TCE. The commenters claimed that

increases in solvent consumption rate would ultimately create elevated

vapor concentrations in the carbon adsorption device thereby making

recovery more difficult. The commenters further claimed that even

though MC is cheaper per unit volume, more MC would be required to

achieve the same level of cleaning.

The commenters also maintained that add-on control equipment,

retrofits and machine replacement technologies identified in the

proposed rule are for the typical halogenated solvent cleaning machines

that were subject to the 1994 NESHAP, and not continuous web cleaning

machines or systems. The commenters stated that modifications such as

modifying freeboard ratios, adding working mode covers, or retrofitting

freeboard refrigeration devices are inapplicable because no freeboard

exists in continuous web cleaning machines, which are enclosed, with

the exception of entrance and exit points during normal operations. The

commenters further stated that vacuum-to-vacuum machines are only

appropriate for batch cleaners. Because of these technical issues, the

commenters stated that EPA did not evaluate the costs and technological

feasibility of the facility-wide emission limits for the continuous web

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 25/38
cleaning machines.

Response: In response to this comment, as stated earlier, EPA

issued a NODA (71 FR 75184, (December 14, 2006)) to gather more

information on the costs of complying with the proposed standards by

the aerospace industry, narrow tubing manufacturing industry, and the

facilities using continuous web cleaning machines. As also stated

earlier, responses to the NODA-provided significant information has led

EPA to re-evaluate costs of installing CADs and vacuum-to-vacuum

machines. EPA has determined that compliance by continuous web cleaning

machines with either the proposed 40,000 kg/yr limit or the 60,000 kg/

yr MC equivalent limit would not be cost effective and either limit may

be technically infeasible in some instances. Consequently, as stated in

Section III.A.3 of this Preamble, EPA is not requiring continuous web

cleaning machines to comply with the facility-wide emission limits we

are promulgating for this final rule. EPA is concluding that the

current level of control by the existing NESHAP both reduces HAP

emissions to levels that present an acceptable risk and provides an

ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse

environmental effects.

Comment: One commenter, an industry association representing

producers and users of halogenated solvents, indicated that MC is not

compatible with some substrates because of its aggressive nature. In

addition, the commenter stated that MC's low boiling point shortens the

effective cleaning time and makes it ineffective for light-gauge metals

where incomplete rinsing action may cause staining. According to the

commenter, the low boiling point of MC also makes it less effective on

stubborn soils, including high-melting point waxes and pitches and

grossly contaminated parts. The commenter stated that PCE's higher

boiling point makes it ideal for these applications. According to the

commenter, PCE is also a popular choice for closed-loop equipment,

where PCE's inherent stability reduces the possibility of hydrolysis.

The commenter also stated that while MC has the lowest vapor loss

rate from an idling halogenated solvent cleaning machine, its low vapor

density makes it the most difficult to control in a working degreaser

where air movements generally increase losses. The commenter also

stated that MC has the lowest vapor recovery rates in carbon adsorption

systems used to collect solvents from many web and in-line machines. In

addition, the commenter stated that MC users are subject to a

comprehensive OSHA standard that requires a medical surveillance and

removal program not required for PCE and TCE users.

Response: EPA recognizes that there are chemical and physical

limitations when considering solvent switching as a method to reduce

emissions in compliance with both the proposed and final facility-wide

emission limits we are promulgating in this final rule. In the proposed

rule, EPA assumed 30

[[Page 25153]]

percent of facilities would switch to a less potent solvent; however,

significant comments have led us to re-evaluate these assumptions.

Consequently, with regard to our solvent switching analysis, for this

final rule, EPA has reduced the number of units for which solvent

switching is an option from 30 percent to 15 percent. The cost analysis

in Section III.B. of the Preamble to this final rule reflects this

change.

7. General Comments

Comment: A number of commenters stated that the 1999 NEI data did

not reflect current emission levels and were not a sufficient basis for

assessing technical or economic feasibility. Some believed that the

1999 NEI database was obsolete and provided an incomplete emission

database when used as a primary source of data for halogenated solvent

emissions. The commenter stated that the industry had changed since

1999 due to local, regional, and State regulatory pressures. The

commenter indicated that the most significant change since 1999 was the

phase out of TCA manufacture for emissive use, which effectively

eliminated its use for solvent cleaning. The commenters pointed out

that EPA had access to the 2002 NEI database and encouraged EPA to reevaluate the risk assessment using the updated database.

Response: In response to public comments we received on the August

17, 2006 rule proposal, we reassessed the risks associated with the

halogenated solvent source category using the 2002 NEI inventory. The

proposal was based on the 1999 inventory. These data were not available

at the time the proposal was being developed.

Comment: One commenter stated that EPA established a MACT standard

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 26/38
for the continuous web subcategory in December 1999 and therefore,

Section 112(f) risk analysis for the subcategory is not required until

December 2007. The commenter stated that the continuous web subcategory

was established five years after the standard for the other halogenated

solvent machines. According to the commenter EPA's proposed rule fails

to recognize that under this requirement EPA has eight years from

December 3, 1999 (or by December 3, 2007) to conduct the residual risk

evaluation for the continuous web subcategory.

Response: Section 112(f)(2)(A) requires the Administrator to

promulgate applicable standards ``within 8 years after promulgation of

standards,'' under section 112(d). We read this provision as allowing

for our promulgation of standards, under section 112(f), within 8 years

of the effective date of section 112(d) requirements, rather than

within 8 years of the compliance date of the section 112(d)

requirements. (See for example, section 112(f)(3) (``the Administrator

shall establish a compliance date or dates * * * which shall provide

for compliance as expeditiously as practicable but in no event later

than three years after the effective date of such standard.'' (Emphasis

added)). The effective date of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP

is December 2, 1994, and not December 3, 1999, as suggested by the

commenter, although we subsequently made certain clarifications and

amendments to these requirements. Our obligation to promulgate residual

risk standards for this source category is therefore past, and we are

now operating under a consent decree that required our promulgation of

today's rule on or before December 15, 2006, subsequently extended to

April 16, 2007. We also believe that there is nothing in the Act that

precludes our completion of the residual risk review prior to 8 years

after promulgation of section 112(d) standards.

Comment: One commenter stated that EPA had used a very simplistic

model to perform the emissions evaluations which may be acceptable for

an initial screening, but that the Agency had failed to provide

information to either validate its approach or any indication as to

whether the presented risk levels exceed the upper bound limit of 100-

in-a-million using the correct facility information such as stack

parameters. The commenter requested that EPA review the seven

facilities with an estimated cancer risk greater than 100-in-a-million

to determine whether the use of average stack parameters was

appropriate and to revise the proposed rule accordingly. The commenter

also requested that EPA add an option allowing facilities to conduct

site-specific emission modeling to determine if a facility meets or

exceeds the allowable MIR, which would depend on which option EPA

finalized. Subsequently, EPA could use this modeling to set a sitespecific facility limit that is higher than either proposed options.

Response: The choice of the proposed emission limits and the final

emission limit is based on the level of risk reduced, cost and

technical feasibility to achieve a particular emission limit. While we

acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in the NEI data used, its effect

on risk is not the only consideration for the proposed emission limits.

In spite of the fact that perhaps 50 percent of the release parameters

in the 1999 NEI database may be defaults, our understanding of this

source category and our best engineering judgment suggested the data

were reasonable to use in our risk assessment, (e.g., the range of

stack heights was appropriate for these sources). We also acknowledged

that while our risk assessment was likely to overestimate risks, this

overestimate was not likely to be large because of the many variables

and assumptions used in the assessment that would yield lower estimated

risk levels, (e.g., the use of a probabilistic method for evaluating

population risks). Therefore, a focused evaluation of the release

parameters of a few facilities at the upper end of the risk spectrum,

while possibly having some effect on their individual risk levels, is

not likely to affect our overall conclusions about the level of risk

from the entire source category.

Concerning the site specific emission modeling, EPA did not

incorporate in the proposed rule an approach that would allow site

specific modeling. Instead, EPA assessed risk on a source category

basis. EPA also did not incorporate in the proposed rule an approach a

low-risk alternative for compliance.

V. Responses to Significant Comments on EPA's December 14, 2006, Notice

of Data Availability (NODA)

A. Emission Limits

Comment: Two commenters from the aerospace industry submitted

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 27/38
available compliance options for the 40,000 kg/yr MC equivalent

emission limit. One option involved switching from HAP chlorinated

solvents to n-propyl bromide. Another option involved the facilities

switching to an alkaline degreasing system with ultrasonic wash tanks.

One aerospace facility, which had a large operation with multiple

halogenated solvent cleaning machines, submitted very detailed

descriptions of each machine, the options available and the associated

costs of implementation. For their multiple machines, they presented

twelve emissions reduction options, five of which reduced their

emissions to below the 40,000 kg/yr MC equivalent limit. The compliance

options include a combination of machine covers, extension areas,

additional drain time for parts, installing larger or additional carbon

absorption systems and switching some current machines with vacuum-tovacuum machines. The commenter indicated that completing these

[[Page 25154]]

compliance options would take six years or more.

Response: EPA recognizes that a few small aerospace facilities may

operate with emissions at or below both the proposed and final

promulgated emission limits. In the proposal, EPA assumed solvent

switching and other technologies could be applied at a reasonable cost.

EPA has discovered, however, that this industry is bound to the use of

chlorinated solvents and solvent switching is not a viable option for

compliance. As earlier stated, EPA also recognized that the affected

facilities cannot undertake all the necessary modifications within the

three-year compliance period. EPA also notes that all these

considerations are true for the final promulgated 60,000 kg/yr emission

limit.

Comment: Two commenters that use continuous web cleaning machines

maintained that they could not comply with either of the proposed

emission limits. Both facilities stated that they had installed carbon

absorption devices, which operated at about 99 percent control

efficiency, but that most of their emissions could not be captured by

these devices because of the nature of continuous web cleaning

machines. According to the commenters, fugitive emissions occur in

different locations along production lines and along the cleaning

process. The commenters provided some possible additions to their

cleaning systems that would achieve additional reductions, but they did

not provide information on the emission levels they could attain. The

commenters stated that there are limited available technologies to

capture emissions and that it would be technically difficult for them

to capture a significant portion of their emissions. The commenters

also maintained that attaining a degree of control rather than meeting

an emission limit is a more appropriate measure of their emission

reduction capability.

Response: EPA recognizes that continuous web machines are designed

differently from general halogenated solvent cleaning machines, i.e.,

batch and in-line cleaning machines. As explained in earlier responses,

we have determined that it is both technologically infeasible and not

cost effective for continuous web cleaning machines to comply with our

final promulgated emissions limit. As also stated in Section III.A.3.

of the preamble, in this final rule, we are not setting any emissions

limits for facilities that use continuous web cleaners. As also

explained earlier, we are concluding that the current level of control

for continuous web cleaning machines called for by the existing NESHAP

reduces HAP emissions to levels that present an acceptable risk,

protects public health with an ample margin of safety, and prevents

adverse environmental effects.

Comment: We received significant comments from five narrow tubing

manufacturers. These commenters presented very significant and

compelling reasons as to why they could not meet the proposed emission

limits. The commenters indicated that carbon absorption systems were

the only available feasible control technology but that installation

would result in only a maximum of 25 percent overall emissions

reduction. The commenters stated that vacuum-to-vacuum machines have

not been engineered or tested to the sizes that are required for their

specific industrial processes. They claimed that such large vacuum-tovacuum machines are not available from machine manufacturers. One

commenter stated that after five years of research and design they may

be able to achieve the 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit.

Response: EPA is persuaded that narrow tube manufacturing

facilities are the most technically challenged in reducing emissions to

the levels called for by either our proposed or final promulgated

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 28/38
60,000 kg/yr emission limit. EPA has also determined that this industry

is bound to the use of chlorinated solvents and solvent switching is

not a viable option for compliance. Furthermore, EPA is persuaded that

vacuum-to-vacuum technology has not developed to a point where this

industry can install these machines into their processes with certainty

of performance. Therefore, EPA has concluded in this rule that this

industry could only achieve both the proposed and final promulgated

emissions limits by implementing newly engineered and untested

technology. Consequently, as explained earlier in Section III.A.3. of

the Preamble, EPA is adopting no changes to the 1994 NESHAP for the

halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by the narrow tubing

industry, and we are concluding that the current level of control by

the existing NESHAP reduces HAP emissions to levels that present an

acceptable risk, protects public health with an ample margin of safety,

and prevents adverse environmental effects.

B. Cost Impacts

Comment: One aerospace facility maintained that the application of

various technologies would result in 85 percent overall emissions

reduction at capital costs of between $1.1 and $1.7 million, for this

particular facility, but that it would need considerable more time

beyond the proposed two years compliance period to implement the

proposed emissions limits.

Response: As a result of the comments on compliance costs, EPA reevaluated the ability of the aerospace industry to feasibly implement

in a cost effective manner other emission limits we discussed at

proposal but did not propose (ranging from 60,000 kg/yr to 250,000 kg/

yr MC equivalent emission limits). We relied on commenters' submissions

to assist us in revising our cost estimates for complying with these

emissions limits by the aerospace industry and also relied on it in

part in applying cost assumptions to the remainder of the other

industries that use halogenated solvent cleaning machines.

The results indicated that implementing additional emission control

levels, (ranging from 60,000 kg/yr to 250,000 kg/yr MC equivalent

emission limits), within a three-year compliance period would result in

total capital costs of over $9 million with a cost effectiveness of

about $2,000/ton of solvent used. Furthermore, EPA calculated the total

annualized costs for each cancer case avoided would be more than $17.5

million for the 100,000 kg/yr MC equivalent emission limit. Therefore,

EPA is concluding in this final rule that the NESHAP requirements for

aerospace manufacturing and maintenance degreasing machines, provide an

ample margin of safety and that the requirements set forth in this

final rule are not applicable to halogenated solvent cleaning machines

that are associated with the aerospace manufacturing and maintenance

industry and facilities. Under this final rule, the 1994 NESHAP

requirements remain applicable to all the halogenated solvent cleaning

machines associated with the aerospace manufacturing and maintenance

facilities.

Comment: Commenters that use continuous web cleaning machines

projected the capital costs of complying with the proposed emission

limits (through ``additions'' to their production lines) at about

$1,000,000.

Response: EPA recognizes the unique character of continuous web

cleaning machines and is persuaded that technical emission control

choices are limited to CADs to attain significant emission reductions.

EPA has assumed that CADs may only achieve a 10 to 30 percent overall

reductions in facility-wide emissions. Therefore, CAD alone would be

insufficient for purposes of complying with the final promulgated

[[Page 25155]]

emissions limit. We have taken this into consideration in promulgating

the final rule.

Comment: The narrow tube manufacturing industry calculated their

costs of compliance with the proposed emission limits on the basis of

installing CAD and researching and designing new and untested vacuumto-vacuum technology. They indicated that capital costs for CAD

installation ranged from $200,000 to $1,800,000. They also indicated

that while this option is technically feasible it would only achieve 10

to 30 percent maximum in overall facility emissions reductions. The

commenters further indicated that compliance with the proposed limits

would require engineering new technology or relying on vacuum-to-vacuum

machines, but that after conferring with vacuum-to-vacuum machine

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 29/38
manufacturers, the cost estimates were more than $4,600,000 in capital

costs with about $578,000 for operating costs. One facility, which

produces specialized narrow tubing for medical applications, projected

costs for vacuum-to-vacuum machines installation at $10.5 million and

estimated that it would require between five and six years for the

evaluation of the machines' cleaning performance. The commenters also

stated that end-loading machines would require additional building

space for loading and unloading tube bundles with lengths of 80 to 110

feet.

Response: EPA is persuaded that the narrow tubing industry is

confronted with the biggest technological hurdle in achieving emissions

reductions for purposes of achieving either the proposed or final

promulgated emission limits. EPA is persuaded that emission control

choices, for the narrow tubing industry, are limited to CAD, in order

to attain the most significant emission reductions within the threeyear compliance time frame. EPA is also persuaded that CAD may only

achieve a 10 to 30 percent overall reductions in facility-wide

emissions. Therefore, we have determined that installation of CAD alone

would not control emissions to the level of either the proposed or

final promulgated emission limits. We have also taken into

consideration the costs for developing technology that will reduce

emissions to both the proposed and final promulgated emissions limits.

EPA has amended its cost analysis for this group of facilities and has

determined that a cost effectiveness of over $3,600/ton, when joined

with EPA's estimate of over $87 million in annual costs for each cancer

case avoided, is unreasonable. Therefore, EPA is concluding in this

final rule that the NESHAP requirements for narrow tube manufacturing

provide an ample margin of safety, prevent adverse environmental

effects and that the requirements set forth in this final rule will not

be applicable to halogenated solvent cleaning machines associated with

the narrow tubing manufacturing industry. Under this final rule, the

1994 NESHAP requirements remain applicable to all continuous web and

halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by narrow tubing and

aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities.

C. Compliance Schedule

Comment: Aerospace industries maintained that a five-year minimum

compliance period would be necessary to investigate technology and

protocol changes in order to comply with the proposed 40,000 kg/yr

limit. A commenter from the narrow tubing industry suggested between

five and ten years as necessary for them to investigate the probability

of applying technology to reduce emissions to a significant amount, to

either of the proposed emission limits.

The narrow tube manufacturing commenters stated that their machines

are unique, indicated the non-availability of feasible emission

reductions technology for either proposed emission limits and

recommended that EPA allow the industry five to ten years for research

and development of specific vacuum-to-vacuum technology for the

specific needs of their industry.

Response: As stated in responses to earlier comments, EPA has

considered these comments as significant and after re-evaluating

compliance costs, technical feasibility and other factors, is

concluding that, for the aerospace manufacturing and maintenance

industry, narrow tube manufacturing industry, and facilities using

continuous web cleaning machines, the current level of control provided

by the existing NESHAP both reduces HAP emissions to levels that

present an acceptable risk and provides an ample margin of safety to

protect public health.

VI. Impacts

For sources required to comply with the 60,000 kg/yr MC equivalent

emission limit, the national capital costs to reach compliance with the

final rule are estimated to be $15,000,000 with annualized cost savings

of $1.3 million. The capital costs for individual facilities would

range from $15,000 to $800,000 with an average cost of about $200,000.

More than 60 percent of the facilities implementing control technology

would recognize a cost savings primarily from solvent savings.

Capturing and controlling HAP emissions is a pollution prevention

approach where emissions reduction translate into less PCE, TCE and MC

consumption and reduced operating costs primarily because facilities

would need to purchase less solvents. Using the 2002 NEI database, the

maximum individual cancer risk is estimated to be reduced from 100-in-1

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 30/38
million to between 20 and 50-in-a-million (using both OPPTS and CalEPA

potency values). The rule is expected to reduce cancer incidence from

0.55 cases annually to 0.36 cases annually, a reduction in cancer

incidence of 0.19 cases annually.

EPA also estimates that to comply with the 100,000 kg/yr MC

equivalent emission limit, military depot maintenance facilities are

expected to incur $540,000 in capital costs with annualized savings of

about $56,000. Using the 2002 NEI database, the maximum individual

cancer risk is estimated to be reduced from six-in-a-million to threein-a-million. The emission limit for military depot maintenance

facilities is expected to reduce cancer incidence by 0.002 cases

annually.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this

action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Executive Order (EO)

12866 gives the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the authority to

review regulatory actions that are categorized as ``significant'' under

section 3(f) of the EP, i.e., those actions that are likely to result

in a rule that may raise novel legal and policy issues arising out of

mandates in CAA section 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6). Accordingly, EPA

submitted this action to OMB for review under EO 12866 and any changes

made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the

docket for this action.

In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and

benefits associated with this action. This analysis, which is briefly

summarized in Section III.B. of the Preamble, is contained in National

Cost Impacts Memorandum. A copy of the analysis is available in the

docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose any new information collection burden.

Owners

[[Page 25156]]

or operators will continue to keep records and submit required reports

to EPA or the delegated State regulatory authority. Notifications,

reports, and records are essential in determining compliance and are

required, in general, of all sources subject to the 1994 Halogenated

Solvent Cleaning NESHAP. Owners or operators subject to the 1994

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP continue to maintain records and

retain them for at least 5 years following the date of such

measurements, reports, and records. Information collection requirements

that were promulgated on December 2, 1994 in the Halogenated Solvent

Cleaning NESHAP prior to the 2005 proposed amendments, as well the

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are

mandatory for all owners or operators subject to national emission

standards, are documented in EPA ICR No. 1652.05. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved these information

collection requirements contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR

part 63 subpart T under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0273,

EPA ICR number 1652.05. A copy of the OMB approved Information

Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection

Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-

1672.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or

provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize

technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and

verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and

disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to

comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;

train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;

search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;

and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 31/38
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's

regulations in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR part 15.

We have established a public docket for this action, which includes

the ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0009, which can be

found in http://www.regulations.gov. This final decision will not

change the burden estimates from those developed and approved in 1994

for the national emission standard.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative

Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the

rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impact of the final action on small

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined

by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR

121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of

a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a

population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is

any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated

and is not dominant in its field.

As mentioned earlier in this Preamble, facilities across several

industries use halogenated solvents to degrease their products,

therefore a number of size standards are utilized in this analysis. For

the industries represented in this analysis, the employment size

standard varies from 500 to 1,500 employees. The annual sales standard

is as low as 4 million dollars and as high as 150 million dollars.

After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small

entities, we have concluded that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This conclusion is based on the economic impact of the final rule to

affected small entities in the entire halogenated solvent cleaning

source category. The final rule is expected to affect 125 ultimate

parent entities that will be regulated as major sources. Forty of the

parent entities, or approximately one-third, are defined as small

according to the SBA small business size standards. None of the small

firms has an annualized cost of more than 0.7 percent of sales

associated with meeting the requirements for major sources, and 16 of

the forty affected small firms are estimated to incur no costs or have

cost savings associated with compliance with the final rule. For more

information, please consult the economic impact analysis for this

rulemaking.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the

effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal

governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA

generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that

may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in

the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any

one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement

is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify

and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt

the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205

do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,

section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that

alternative was not adopted.

Before we establish any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a

small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying

potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 32/38
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the

development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

We have determined that this final rule does not contain a Federal

mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for

State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the

private sector in any 1 year. Thus, this final rule is not subject to

the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

EPA has determined that the final rule contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small

governments because it contains

[[Page 25157]]

no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations

upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to

ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in

the development of regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is

defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have

``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between

the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power

and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''

This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not

have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and the States, or on the distribution

of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,

as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected halogenated

solvent cleaning facilities are owned or operated by State or local

governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final

rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian

Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribe Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),

requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful

and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory

policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal

implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations

that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on

the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes,

or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the

Federal government and Indian tribes.''

This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship

between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the

distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal

government and Indian tribes as specified in Executive Order 13175.

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final decision.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental

Health and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any

rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as

defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental

health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets

both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or

safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the

planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and

reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This final decision is not subject to the Executive Order because

it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,

the Agency believes this action represents reasonable further efforts

to mitigate risks to the general public, including effects on children.

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 33/38
This conclusion is based on our assessment of the imposed emission

limits that would reduce chlorinated solvent impacts on human health

associated with exposures to halogenated solvent cleaning operations.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

The final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not

likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,

distribution, or use of energy.

This final rule will have a negligible impact on energy consumption

because about ten percent of entities using halogenated solvent

cleaning will have to reduce emissions through a range of activities

involving simple process changes to the installation of additional

emission control equipment or special low emitting machines to comply.

The cost of energy distribution should not be affected by the final

rule at all since the standards do not affect energy distribution

facilities. We also expect that there would be no impact on the import

of foreign energy supplies, and no other adverse outcomes are expected

to occur with regards to energy supplies. Further, we have concluded

that this final rule is not likely to have any significant adverse

energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note),

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its

regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with

applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards

(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The

NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when

the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

This final revision to the 1994 NESHAP for halogenated solvent

cleaning do not include requirements for technical standards beyond

what the NESHAP requires. Therefore, the requirements of the NTTAA do

not apply to this action.

J. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. The EPA will submit a report containing the final rule

amendment and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.

House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of this final rule amendment in the Federal

Register. The final rule amendment is not a ``major rule'' as defined

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule is effective on May 3, 2007.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 16, 2007.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator.

0

For reasons stated in the Preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[Amended]

0

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 34/38
Subpart T--[Amended]

0

2. Section 63.460 is amended by revising paragraphs (c), (d), and (g)

and adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:

[[Page 25158]]

Sec. 63.460 Applicability and designation of source.

* * * * *

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, each

solvent cleaning machine subject to this subpart that commenced

construction or reconstruction after November 29, 1993 shall achieve

compliance with the provisions of this subpart, except for Sec.

63.471, immediately upon start-up or by December 2, 1994, whichever is

later.

(d) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, each

solvent cleaning machine subject to this subpart that commenced

construction or reconstruction on or before November 29, 1993 shall

achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart, except for

Sec. 63.471, no later than December 2, 1997.

* * * * *

(g) Each continuous web cleaning machine subject to this subpart

shall achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart, except

for Sec. 63.471, no later than December 2, 1999.

* * * * *

(i) The compliance date for the requirements in Sec. 63.471

depends on the date that construction or reconstruction of the affected

facility commences. For purposes of this paragraph, affected facility

means all solvent cleaning machines, except solvent cleaning machines

used in the manufacture and maintenance of aerospace products, solvent

cleaning machines used in the manufacture of narrow tubing, and

continuous web cleaning machines, located at a major source that are

subject to the facility-wide limits in Table 1 of Sec. 63.471(b)(2),

and for area sources, affected facility means all solvent cleaning

machines, except cold batch cleaning machines, located at an area

source that are subject to the facility-wide limits in Table 1 of Sec.

63.471(b)(2).

(1) Each affected facility that was constructed or reconstructed on

or before August 17, 2006, shall be in compliance with the provisions

of this subpart no later than May 3, 2010.

(2) Each affected facility that was constructed or reconstructed on

or after August 17, 2006, shall be in compliance with the provisions of

this subpart on May 3, 2007 or immediately upon startup, whichever is

later.

0

3. Section Sec. 63.471 is added to Subpart T to read as follows:

Sec. 63.471 Facility-wide standards.

(a) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall comply

with the requirements specified in this section. For purposes of this

section, affected facility means all solvent cleaning machines, except

solvent cleaning machines used in the manufacture and maintenance of

aerospace products, solvent cleaning machines used in the manufacture

of narrow tubing, and continuous web cleaning machines, located at a

major source that are subject to the facility-wide limits in paragraph

(b)(2) of this section, and for area sources, affected facility means

all solvent cleaning machines, except cold batch cleaning machines,

located at an area source that are subject to the facility-wide limits

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

(b)(1) Each owner or operator of an affected facility must maintain

a log of solvent additions and deletions for each solvent cleaning

machine.

(2) Each owner or operator of an affected facility must ensure that

the total emissions of perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE)

and methylene chloride (MC) used at the affected facility are equal to

or less than the applicable facility-wide 12-month rolling total

emission limit presented in Table 1 of this section as determined using

the procedures in paragraph (c) of this section.

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 35/38
Table 1.--Facility-wide Emission Limits for Facilities With Solvent Cleaning Machines

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

Facility-wide annual

emission limits in kg-- Facility-wide annual

Solvents emitted for general population emission limit in kg

degreasing machines for military depot

maintenance facilities

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

PCE only \a\.................................................. 4,800 8,000

TCE only...................................................... 14,100 23,500

MC only....................................................... 60,000 100,000

Multiple solvents--Calculate the MC-weighted emissions using 60,000 100,000

equation 1...................................................

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

\a\ PCE emission limit calculated using CalEPA URE.

Note: In the equation, the facility emissions of PCE and TCE are

weighted according to their carcinogenic potency relative to that of

MC. The value of A is 12.5. The value for B is 4.25.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY07.015

Where:

WE = Weighted 12-month rolling total emissions in kg (lbs).

PCE = 12-month rolling total PCE emissions from all solvent cleaning

machines at the facility in kg (lbs).

TCE = 12-month rolling total TCE emission from all solvent cleaning

machines at the facility in kg (lbs).

MC = 12-month rolling total MC emissions from all solvent cleaning

machines at the facility in kg (lbs).

(c) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall on the

first operating day of every month, demonstrate compliance with the

applicable facility-wide emission limit on a 12-month rolling total

basis using the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this

section. For purposes of this paragraph, ``each solvent cleaning

machine'' means each solvent cleaning machine that is part of an

affected facility regulated by this section.

(1) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall, on the

first operating day of every month, ensure that each solvent cleaning

machine system contains only clean liquid solvent. This includes, but

is not limited to, fresh unused solvent, recycled solvent, and used

solvent that has been cleaned of soiled materials. A fill line must be

indicated during the first month the measurements are made. The solvent

level within the machine must be returned to the same fill-line each

month, immediately prior to calculating monthly emissions as specified

in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section. The solvent cleaning

machine does not have to be emptied and filled with fresh unused

solvent prior to the calculations.

(2) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall, on the

first operating day of the month, using the records of all solvent

additions and deletions for the previous month, determine solvent

emissions (Eunit) from each solvent cleaning machine using

equation 10:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY07.016

Where:

Eunit = the total halogenated HAP solvent emissions from

the solvent cleaning

[[Page 25159]]

machine during the most recent month i, (kilograms of solvent per

month).

SAi = the total amount of halogenated HAP liquid solvent

added to the solvent cleaning machine during the most recent month

i, (kilograms of solvent per month).

LSRi = the total amount of halogenated HAP liquid solvent

removed from the solvent cleaning machine during the most recent

month i, (kilograms of solvent per month).

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 36/38
SSRi = the total amount of halogenated HAP solvent

removed from the solvent cleaning machine in solid waste, obtained

as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, during the most

recent month i, (kilograms of solvent per month).

(3) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall, on the

first operating day of the month, determine SSRi using the

method specified in paragraph (c)(3)(i) or (c)(3)(ii) of this section.

(i) From tests conducted using EPA reference method 25d.

(ii) By engineering calculations included in the compliance report.

(4) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall on the

first operating day of the month, after 12 months of emissions data are

available, determine the 12-month rolling total emissions,

ETunit, for the 12-month period ending with the most recent

month using equation 11:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY07.017

Where:

ETunit = the total halogenated HAP solvent emissions over

the preceding 12 months, (kilograms of solvent emissions per 12-

month period).

Eunit = halogenated HAP solvent emissions for each month

(j) for the most recent 12 months (kilograms of solvent per month).

(5) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall on the

first operating day of the month, after 12 months of emissions data are

available, determine the 12-month rolling total emissions,

ETfacility, for the 12-month period ending with the most

recent month using equation 12:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY07.018

Where:

ETfacility = the total halogenated HAP solvent emissions

over the preceding 12 months for all cleaning machines at the

facility, (kilograms of solvent emissions per 12-month period).

ETunit = the total halogenated HAP solvent emissions over

the preceding 12 months for each unit j, where i equals the total

number of units at the facility (kilograms of solvent emissions per

12-month period).

(d) If the applicable facility-wide emission limit presented in

Table 1 of paragraph (b)(2) is not met, an exceedance has occurred. All

exceedances shall be reported as required in Sec. 63.468(h).

(e) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall maintain

records specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section

either in electronic or written form for a period of 5 years. For

purposes of this paragraph, ``each solvent cleaning machine'' means

each solvent cleaning machine that is part of an affected facility

regulated by this section.

(1) The dates and amounts of solvent that are added to each solvent

cleaning machine.

(2) The solvent composition of wastes removed from each solvent

cleaning machines as determined using the procedure described in

paragraph (c)(3) of this section.

(3) Calculation sheets showing how monthly emissions and the 12-

month rolling total emissions from each solvent cleaning machine were

determined, and the results of all calculations.

(f) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit an

initial notification report to the Administrator no later than May 3,

2010. This report shall include the information specified in paragraphs

(f)(1) through (5) of this section.

(1) The name and address of the owner or operator of the affected

facility.

(2) The address (i.e., physical location) of the solvent cleaning

machine(s) that is part of an affected facility regulated by this

section.

(3) A brief description of each solvent cleaning machine at the

affected facility including machine type (batch vapor, batch cold,

vapor in-line or cold in-line), solvent/air interface area, and

existing controls.

(4) The date of installation for each solvent cleaning machine.

(5) An estimate of annual halogenated HAP solvent consumption for

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 37/38
each solvent cleaning machine.

(g) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit to

the Administrator an initial statement of compliance on or before May

3, 2010. The statement shall include the information specified in

paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this section.

(1) The name and address of the owner or operator of the affected

facility.

(2) The address (i.e., physical location) of each solvent cleaning

machine that is part of an affected facility regulated by this section.

(3) The results of the first 12-month rolling total emissions

calculation.

(h) Each owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit a

solvent emission report every year. This solvent emission report shall

contain the requirements specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3)

of this section.

(1) The average monthly solvent consumption for the affected

facility in kilograms per month.

(2) The 12-month rolling total solvent emission estimates

calculated each month using the method as described in paragraph (c) of

this section.

(3) This report can be combined with the annual report required in

Sec. 63.468(f) and (g) into a single report for each facility.

[FR Doc. E7-7668 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

3/14/2011 frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEX...

...gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISd... 38/38