[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 65 (Thursday, April 3, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18334-18381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-6411]
[[Page 18333]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area Source
Standards for Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Source Categories;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 65 / Thursday, April 3, 2008 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 18334]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0306; FRL-8547-2]
RIN 2060-AO27
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area
Source Standards for Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Source
Categories
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national emission standards for control of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for nine metal fabrication and finishing
area source categories. This rule proposes emission standards in the
form of management practices and equipment standards for new and
existing operations of dry abrasive blasting, machining, dry grinding
and dry polishing with machines, spray painting and other spray
coating, and welding operations. These proposed standards reflect EPA's
determination regarding the generally achievable control technology
(GACT) and/or management practices for the nine area source categories.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 5, 2008, unless a
public hearing is requested by April 14, 2008. If a hearing is
requested on this proposed rule, written comments must be received by
May 19, 2008. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the
information collection provisions must be received by OMB on or before
May 5, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0306, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Fax: (202) 566-9744.
Mail: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Area Source Standards for Metal Fabrication and Finishing
Operations Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. In
addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information
collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for
EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0306. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and 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 NESHAP for Metal Fabrication
and Finishing Area Sources Docket, at the EPA Docket and Information
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Donna Lee Jones, Sector Policies
and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(D243-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5251; fax number:
(919) 541-3207; e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards
A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for
the proposed standards?
B. What source categories are affected by the proposed
standards?
C. What are the production operations, emission sources, and
available controls?
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
A. Do the proposed standards apply to my source?
B. When must I comply with the proposed standards?
C. For what processes is EPA proposing standards?
D. What emissions control requirements is EPA proposing?
E. What are the initial compliance provisions?
F. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
G. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule
A. How did we select the source category?
B. How did we select the affected sources?
C. How did we determine the regulated processes?
D. How was GACT determined?
E. How did we select the compliance requirements?
F. How did we decide to exempt this area source category from
title V permit requirements?
V. Impacts of the Proposed Standards
A. What are the air impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy
impacts?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
[[Page 18335]]
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. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
proposed action are shown in the table below. This proposed rule
applies only to facilities that are an area source of the compounds of
cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel, or an area source of
volatile organic HAP (VOHAP) from spray painting operations, and which
perform metal fabrication or finishing operations in one of the
following nine source categories: (1) Electrical and Electronic
Equipment Finishing Operations; (2) Fabricated Metal Products; (3)
Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler Shops); (4) Fabricated Structural Metal
Manufacturing; (5) Heating Equipment, except Electric; (6) Industrial
Machinery and Equipment: Finishing Operations; (7) Iron and Steel
Forging; (8) Primary Metal Products Manufacturing; and (9) Valves and
Pipe Fittings. Facilities affected by this proposed rule are not
subject to the miscellaneous coating requirements in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHHHH, ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations at Area Sources,'' for their affected source(s) that are
subject to the requirements of this proposed rule. There potentially
may be other sources at the facility not subject to the requirements of
this proposed rule that are instead subject to subpart HHHHHH of this
part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal fabrication and Examples of Regulated
finishing category NAICS Codes\1\ Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrical and Electronics 335999........... Establishments
Equipment Finishing primarily engaged in
Operations. manufacturing motors
and generators and
electrical
machinery,
equipment, and
supplies, not
elsewhere
classified. The
electrical machinery
equipment and
supplies industry
sector includes
facilities primarily
engaged in high
energy particle
acceleration systems
and equipment,
electronic
simulators,
appliance and
extension cords,
bells and chimes,
insect traps, and
other electrical
equipment and
supplies, not
elsewhere
classified. The
Motors and
Generators
Manufacturing
industry sector
includes those
establishments
primarily engaged in
manufacturing
electric motors
(except engine
starting motors) and
power generators;
motor generator
sets; railway motors
and control
equipment; and
motors, generators
and control
equipment for
gasoline, electric,
and oil-electric
buses and trucks.
Fabricated Metal Products..... 332117........... Establishments
primarily engaged in
manufacturing
fabricated metal
products, such as
fire or burglary
resistive steel
safes and vaults and
similar fire or
burglary resistive
products; and
collapsible tubes of
thin flexible metal.
Also included are
establishments
primarily engaged in
manufacturing powder
metallurgy products,
metal boxes; metal
ladders; metal
household articles,
such as ice cream
freezers and ironing
boards; and other
fabricated metal
products not
elsewhere
classified.
Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler 332313, 332410, Establishments
Shops). 332420. primarily engaged in
manufacturing power
and marine boilers,
pressure and
nonpressure tanks,
processing and
storage vessels,
heat exchangers,
weldments and
similar products.
Fabricated Structural Metal 332312........... Establishments
Manufacturing. primarily engaged in
fabricating iron and
steel or other metal
for structural
purposes, such as
bridges, buildings,
and sections for
ships, boats, and
barges.
Heating Equipment, except 333414........... Establishments
Electric. primarily engaged in
manufacturing
heating equipment,
except electric and
warm air furnaces,
including gas, oil,
and stoker coal
fired equipment for
the automatic
utilization of
gaseous, liquid, and
solid fuels. Typical
products produced in
this source category
include low-pressure
heating (steam or
hot water) boilers,
fireplace inserts,
domestic (steam or
hot water) furnaces,
domestic gas
burners, gas room
heaters, gas
infrared heating
units, combination
gas-oil burners, oil
or gas swimming pool
heaters, heating
apparatus (except
electric or warm
air), kerosene space
heaters, gas
fireplace logs,
domestic and
industrial oil
burners, radiators
(except electric),
galvanized iron
nonferrous metal
range boilers, room
heaters (except
electric), coke and
gas burning
salamanders, liquid
or gas solar energy
collectors, solar
heaters, space
heaters (except
electric),
mechanical (domestic
and industrial)
stokers, wood and
coal-burning stoves,
domestic unit
heaters (except
electric), and wall
heaters (except
electric).
[[Page 18336]]
Industrial Machinery and 333120, 333132, Establishments
Equipment: Finishing 333911. primarily engaged in
Operations. construction
machinery
manufacturing, oil
and gas field
machinery
manufacturing, and
pumps and pumping
equipment
manufacturing.
Finishing operations
include the
collection of all
operations
associated with the
surface coating of
industrial machinery
and equipment. The
construction
machinery
manufacturing
industry sector
includes
establishments
primarily engaged in
manufacturing heavy
machinery and
equipment of types
used primarily by
the construction
industries, such as
bulldozers; concrete
mixers; cranes,
except industrial
plan overhead and
truck-type cranes;
dredging machinery;
pavers; and power
shovels. Also
included in this
industry are
establishments
primarily engaged in
manufacturing
forestry equipment
and certain
specialized
equipment, not
elsewhere
classified, similar
to that used by the
construction
industries, such as
elevating platforms,
ship cranes and
capstans, aerial
work platforms, and
automobile wrecker
hoists. The oil and
gas field machinery
manufacturing
industry sector
includes
establishments
primarily engaged in
manufacturing
machinery and
equipment for use in
oil and gas field or
for drilling water
wells, including
portable drilling
rigs. The pumps and
pumping equipment
industry sector
includes
establishments
primarily engaged in
manufacturing pumps
and pumping
equipment for
general industrial,
commercial, or
household use,
except fluid power
pumps and motors.
This category
includes
establishments
primarily engaged in
manufacturing
domestic water and
sump pumps.
Iron and Steel Forging........ 33211............ Establishments
primarily engaged in
the forging
manufacturing
process, where
purchased iron and
steel metal is
pressed, pounded or
squeezed under great
pressure into high
strength parts known
as forgings. The
process is usually
performed hot by
preheating the metal
to a desired
temperature before
it is worked. The
forging process is
different from the
casting and foundry
processes, as metal
used to make forged
parts is never
melted and poured.
Primary Metals Products 332618........... Establishments
Manufacturing. primarily engaged in
manufacturing
products such as
fabricated wire
products (except
springs) made from
purchased wire.
These facilities
also manufacture
steel balls;
nonferrous metal
brads and nails;
nonferrous metal
spikes, staples, and
tacks; and other
primary metals
products not
elsewhere
classified.
Valves and Pipe Fittings...... 332919........... Establishments
primarily engaged in
manufacturing metal
valves and pipe
fittings; flanges;
unions, with the
exception of
purchased pipes; and
other valves and
pipe fittings not
elsewhere
classified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provide a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action you can refer to the descriptions in section (II)(B) below. For
descriptions of the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) codes, you can view information on the U.S. Census site at
http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97brdg. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA
regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General
Provisions).
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0306. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). A copy of this
proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page
for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
D. When would a public hearing occur?
If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing
concerning this proposed rule by April 14, 2008, we will hold a public
hearing on April 18, 2008. If you are interested in attending the
public hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541-7966 to verify
that a hearing will be held. If a public hearing is held, it will be
held at 10 a.m.
[[Page 18337]]
at the EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium, Research
Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards
A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for the
proposed standards?
Section 112(d) of the CAA requires us to establish national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for both major
and area sources of HAP that are listed for regulation under CAA
section 112(c). A major source emits or has the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. An area source is a stationary source that is not a
major source.
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least
30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas.
EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air
Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in the
Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health
threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 urban
HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or
subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing
90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to
regulation. We implemented these requirements through the Integrated
Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). A primary goal
of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent reduction in cancer
incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources.
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of GACT or
management practices by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous
air pollutants.'' Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate
report on the legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20,
1989), which describes GACT as:
* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.
Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important
when developing regulations for source categories that may have many
small businesses.
Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control
technologies and management practices that are generally available to
the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards
applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine
if the control technologies and management practices are transferable
and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances,
we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major
sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies
and practices could be considered generally available for the area
source category at issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT
for a particular area source category, we consider the costs and
economic impacts of available control technologies and management
practices on that category.
We are proposing these national emission standards in response to a
court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for 11
source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by June
15, 2008 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, D.D.C., March 2006). We
have already issued regulations addressing one of the 11 area source
categories. See regulations for Wood Preserving (Federal Register, 72
(135), July 16, 2007.) Other rulemakings will include standards for the
remaining source categories that are due in June 2008.
B. What source categories are affected by these proposed standards?
These proposed standards would affect any facility that performs
metal fabrication or finishing operations in one of the following nine
metal fabrication and finishing area source categories: (1) Electrical
and Electronic Equipment Finishing Operations; (2) Fabricated Metal
Products; (3) Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler Shops); (4) Fabricated
Structural Metal Manufacturing; (5) Heating Equipment, except Electric;
(6) Industrial Machinery and Equipment: Finishing Operations; (7) Iron
and Steel Forging; (8) Primary Metal Products Manufacturing; and (9)
Valves and Pipe Fittings. Throughout this proposed rule, we refer to
the nine metal fabrication and finishing source categories collectively
as ``metal fabrication or finishing operations.''
The following are descriptions of the nine metal fabrication and
finishing source categories:
Electrical and Electronic Equipment Finishing Operations: This
category includes establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
motors and generators and electrical machinery, equipment, and
supplies, not elsewhere classified, and includes facilities primarily
engaged in high energy particle acceleration systems and equipment,
electronic simulators, appliance and extension cords, bells and chimes,
insect traps, and other electrical equipment and supplies not elsewhere
classified. This category also includes those establishments primarily
engaged in manufacturing electric motors (except engine starting
motors) and power generators; motor generator sets; railway motors and
control equipment; and motors, generators and control equipment for
gasoline, electric, and oil-electric buses and trucks.
Fabricated Metal Products, Not Elsewhere Classified: This category
includes establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing fabricated
metal products, such as fire or burglary resistive steel safes and
vaults and similar fire or burglary resistive products; and collapsible
tubes of thin flexible metal. Also included are establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing powder metallurgy products, metal
boxes; metal ladders; metal household articles, such as ice cream
freezers and ironing boards; and other fabricated metal products not
elsewhere classified.
Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler Shops): This category includes
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing power and marine
boilers, pressure and nonpressure tanks, processing and storage
vessels, heat exchangers, weldments and similar products.
Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing: This category includes
establishments primarily engaged in fabricating iron and steel or other
metal for structural purposes, such as bridges, buildings, and sections
for ships, boats, and barges.
Heating Equipment, except Electric: This category includes
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing heating equipment,
except electric and warm air furnaces, including gas, oil, and stoker
coal fired equipment for the automatic utilization of gaseous, liquid,
and solid fuels. Typical products produced in this source category
include low-pressure heating (steam or hot water) boilers, fireplace
inserts, domestic (steam or hot water) furnaces, domestic gas burners,
gas room heaters, gas infrared heating units, combination gas-oil
burners, oil or gas swimming pool heaters, heating apparatus (except
electric or warm air), kerosene space heaters, gas fireplace logs,
domestic and industrial oil burners, radiators (except
[[Page 18338]]
electric), galvanized iron nonferrous metal range boilers, room heaters
(except electric), coke and gas burning salamanders, liquid or gas
solar energy collectors, solar heaters, space heaters (except
electric), mechanical (domestic and industrial) stokers, wood and coal-
burning stoves, domestic unit heaters (except electric), and wall
heaters (except electric).
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Finishing Operations: This
category includes establishments primarily engaged in construction
machinery manufacturing, oil and gas field machinery manufacturing, and
pumps and pumping equipment manufacturing. Finishing operations include
the collection of all operations associated with the surface coating of
industrial machinery and equipment. This category includes
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing heavy machinery and
equipment of types used primarily by the construction industries, such
as bulldozers; concrete mixers; cranes, except industrial plant
overhead and truck-type cranes; dredging machinery; pavers; and power
shovels. Also included in this industry are establishments primarily
engaged in manufacturing forestry equipment and certain specialized
equipment, not elsewhere classified, similar to that used by the
construction industries, such as elevating platforms, ship cranes and
capstans, aerial work platforms, and automobile wrecker hoists. This
category also includes establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing machinery and equipment for use in oil and gas fields or
for drilling water wells, including portable drilling rigs. This
category includes establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
pumps and pumping equipment for general industrial, commercial, or
household use, except fluid power pumps and motors, and establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing domestic water and sump pumps.
Iron and Steel Forging: This category includes establishments
primarily engaged in the forging manufacturing process, where purchased
iron and steel metal is pressed, pounded or squeezed under great
pressure into high strength parts known as forgings. The process is
usually performed hot by preheating the metal to a desired temperature
before it is worked. The forging process is different from the casting
and foundry processes, as metal used to make forged parts is never
melted and poured.
Primary Metal Products Manufacturing: This source category includes
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing products such as
fabricated wire products (except springs) made from purchased wire.
These facilities also manufacture steel balls; nonferrous metal brads
and nails; nonferrous metal spikes, staples, and tacks; and other
primary metals products not elsewhere classified.
Valves and Pipe Fittings: This source category includes
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing metal valves and pipe
fittings, flanges, and unions, with the exception of from purchased
pipes; and other valves and pipe fitting products not elsewhere
classified.
We added the nine metal fabrication and finishing source categories
to the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy Area Source Category List
on November 22, 2002 (67 FR 70427). The inclusion of these source
categories to the section 112(c)(3) area source category list is based
on 1990 emissions data, as EPA used 1990 as the baseline year for that
listing. The nine metal fabrication and finishing source categories
were listed for regulation based on emissions of compounds of cadmium,
chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel in the 1990 inventory, hereafter
referred to as ``metal fabrication and finishing metal HAP'' (MFHAP).
Four of the metal fabrication and finishing source categories were also
listed for emissions of the organic HAP trichloroethylene (TCE).\1\
Chlorinated solvents such as TCE are used as degreasers in these metal
fabrication and finishing source categories. We subsequently discovered
that the 1990 emissions data for TCE was for metal fabrication and
finishing facilities that used TCE in degreasing operations, which are
not part of this source category. Rather, these emission units at both
major and area sources are subject to standards for halogenated solvent
cleaning under 40 CFR part 63, subpart T. Consequently, we are not
proposing standards for TCE from metal fabrication and finishing
facilities. The four metal fabrication and finishing source categories
listed for TCE emissions remain listed source categories pursuant to
section 112(c)(3) of this part. Therefore, we are clarifying that we do
not need these four source categories to meet the section 112(c)(3) 90
percent requirement regarding area source emissions of TCE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These four source categories were Electrical and Electronic
Equipment Finishing Operations; Fabricated Metal Products; Primary
Metal Products Manufacturing; and Valves and Pipe Fittings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on 2002 U.S. Census data and a survey of the industry that we
conducted in 2006, we estimate that 5,800 metal fabrication and
finishing area source facilities are currently operating in the U.S.
Our analyses of 2002 U.S. Census data also indicate that more than 90
percent of the metal fabrication and finishing area source categories
is comprised of small businesses, based on the Small Business
Administration definition.
A majority of the metal fabrication and finishing area source
facilities are estimated to be in urban areas, based on an estimate of
73 percent developed from EPA's 2002 National Emission Inventory
(NEI).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These urban areas are defined to be the urban 1 and urban 2
areas that formed the basis of the listing decisions under 112(c)(3)
and (k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities affected by this proposed rule are not subject to the
miscellaneous coating requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH,
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area
Sources,'' for their affected source(s) that are subject to the
requirements of this proposed rule. There potentially may be other
sources at the facility not subject to the requirements of this
proposed rule that are instead subject to subpart HHHHHH of this part.
C. What are the production operations, emission sources, and available
controls?
While these nine source categories produce a wide variety of
products, they perform very similar fabrication and finishing
operations to create them. There are five general production operations
common to metal fabrication and finishing source categories that can
emit MFHAP. These five production operations are: (1) Dry abrasive
blasting; (2) dry grinding and dry polishing with machines; (3)
machining; (4) spray painting and coating; and (5) welding.
As typical within any industry, there is variation in operations
between facilities. Also, all facilities do not necessarily employ all
five production areas. Information acquired from an EPA survey of 166
facilities showed that for the area sources in the source categories of
interest, 39 percent perform dry abrasive blasting, 59 percent perform
metal fabrication and finishing with machines, 60 percent perform
painting or coating of some kind (that includes but is not limited to
spray painting or spray coating), and 65 percent perform welding. More
detailed analyses are available in the docket, including estimated
percentages of the number of facilities in each category performing
each operation.
Another metal fabrication and finishing operation that can emit
MFHAP is plating. This operation was noted to be performed by some of
the
[[Page 18339]]
facilities in the nine metal fabrication and finishing source
categories, but is not regulated by this proposed rule. Plating
operations are not regulated by this proposed rule because they are
regulated elsewhere, as follows: Chromium electroplating tanks are
subject to the Chromium Electroplating NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subpart N),
while other plating operations at area sources are subject to the
Plating and Polishing Area Source Rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWWWW)
which will be promulgated by June 15, 2008.
1. Metal Fabrication and Finishing Operations
The nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing source categories produce
a wide variety of products using five general production operations
that can emit MFHAP: (1) Dry abrasive blasting; (2) dry grinding and
dry polishing with machines; (3) machining; (4) spray painting and
coating; and (5) welding. The following is a brief description of each
of these five fabrication and finishing operations regulated by this
proposed rule.
Dry Abrasive Blasting Operations. This metal fabrication and
finishing operation (also referred to in the industry as sand blasting,
shot blasting, and shot peening) is used to clean or prepare a surface
by forcibly propelling abrasive material against it. Commonly used
abrasives include silica sand, glass beads, aluminum oxide, slag,
garnet, steel shot, walnut shells, as well as other materials. Common
applications of dry abrasive blasting include surface preparation for
painting or coating; burr removal after machining, grinding, or
welding; matte surface finishing; removal of flash from molded objects.
Two primary aspects differentiate the various types of abrasive
blasting: The method of abrasive propulsion and the type of abrasive
used. There are three primary methods of propelling the abrasive: Air
pressure, using compressed air to propel the abrasive; water pressure,
using air or water pressure to propel a wet abrasive slurry; or
centrifugal wheels, which use a rotating impeller to mechanically
propel the abrasive.
Abrasive blasting covers numerous applications under widely varying
conditions. Blasting is also performed outdoors with a portable
apparatus or indoors within specially constructed cabinets or
enclosures/chambers, either manually, or as part of an automated
process line. Because the applications of abrasive blasting are widely
varied, there is a similarly wide variety of abrasive blasting
equipment available.
Dry abrasive blasting equipment consists of the following general
types of systems, listed from small to large: Portable blasters, blast
cabinets or ``glove boxes'', blast chambers which can be 3 or 4-sided
structures, and ``bulk'' blasters that are totally enclosed and vented
to a filtration device to collect and recycle the blast material. Shot
peening is a common type of dry abrasive blasting that is a surface
treatment used to increase the fatigue life of metal parts. In shot
peening, a higher pressure is used to focus the abrasive on a localized
area as opposed to general abrasive blasting that may be directed over
a larger surface area. Shot peening generally refers to abrasive
blasting with metallic or steel pellets, like BB shot. Shot peening is
almost always performed in a contained area so that the pellets can be
recovered and reused. Similarly, blasting performed with sand other
media is also often performed in a contained area so that the media can
be recovered and reused.
Dry Grinding and Dry Polishing Operations. These metal fabrication
and finishing operations are very similar and vary only as to their
timing in the fabrication and extent of abrasion. Not all parts are
polished but most are ground. Grinding is performed on a work piece
prior to fabrication or finishing operations to remove undesirable
material from the surface or to remove burrs or sharp edges. Grinding
is done using belts, disks, or wheels consisting of or covered with
various abrasives, e.g., silica, alumina, silicon carbide, garnet,
alundum, or emery. Grinding may be performed dry or may use lubricants
or coolants such as water or water-based mixtures, solutions, or
emulsions containing cutting oils, soaps, detergents, wetting agents,
or proprietary compounds. Polishing generally follows grinding. The
purpose of the polishing operation is to remove any remaining metal and
to prepare the surface for more refined finishing procedures. Burrs on
castings or stampings may also be removed by polishing. Polishing is
performed using hard-faced wheels constructed of muslin, canvas, felt
or leather. Abrasives are applied to the wheels with synthetic
adhesives or cements, typically silicate-base cements. The types of
abrasives that are used in polishing include both natural and
artificial abrasives. Lubricants including oil, grease, tallow, and
special bar lubricants are used to prevent gouging and tearing when a
fine polished surface is required and also to minimize frictional heat.
Polishing may also be performed by hand without machines; however, no
emissions occur from hand polishing.
Machining Operations. This metal fabrication and finishing
operation includes activities such as turning, milling, drilling,
boring, tapping, planing, broaching, sawing, cutting, shaving,
shearing, threading, reaming, shaping, slotting, hobbing, and
chamfering, where stock is removed from a work piece as chips by a
machine that forces a cutting piece against a work piece. Shearing
operations cut materials into a desired shape and size, while forming
operations bend or conform materials into specific shapes. Cutting and
shearing operations include punching, piercing, blanking, cutoff,
parting, shearing and trimming. Forming operations include bending,
forming, extruding, drawing, rolling, spinning, coining, and forging
the metal. Machining is usually totally enclosed, where the enclosure
is part of the operating equipment. Many of these machining operations
use lubricants or liquid coolants either alone or in conjunction with
enclosures.
Painting Operations. Paints and coatings (hereafter called
``paints'') are applied to metal fabrication and finishing products for
surface protection, aesthetics, or both. Painting or coating (hereafter
called ``painting'') is usually performed using a spray gun in a spray
booth or with portable spray equipment. Paints may also be applied via
dip tanks. The coated parts then pass through an open (flashoff) area
where additional volatiles evaporate from the paint. The coated parts
may pass through a drying/curing oven, or are allowed to air dry, where
the remaining volatiles are evaporated.
Spray-applied painting operations include any hand-held device that
creates an atomized mist of paint and deposits the paint on a
substrate. For the purposes of this rule, spray-painting does not
include thermal spray operations, also known as metallizing, flame
spray, plasma arc spray, and electric arc spray, among other names, in
which solid metallic or non-metallic material is heated to a molten or
semi-molten state and propelled to the work piece or substrate by
compressed air or other gas, where a bond is produced upon impact.
Thermal spraying operations at area sources are subject to the Plating
and Polishing Area Source NESHAP, subpart WWWWWW of this part.
Spray gun cleaning may be done by hand cleaning parts of the
disassembled gun in a container of solvent, by flushing solvent through
the gun without atomizing the solvent and paint residue, or by using a
fully enclosed
[[Page 18340]]
spray gun washer. A combination of non-atomizing methods may also be
used. A gun washer consists of a solvent reservoir and a covered
enclosure that dispenses solvent for gun cleaning. The enclosure may
also hold the gun for automated gun cleaning. During gun cleaning in a
gun washer, the cleaning solvent is dispensed from the reservoir and
sprayed through the gun while it is open.
Welding Operations. This metal fabrication and finishing operation
joins two metal parts by melting the parts at the joint and filling the
space with molten metal. The most frequently used method for generating
heat is obtained either from an electric arc or a gas-oxygen flame. The
type of welding most commonly used in the metal fabrication and
finishing source categories is thought to be electric arc welding.
Electric arc welding includes many different variations that
involve various types of electrodes, fluxes, shielding gases, and types
of equipment. Electric arc welding can be divided into that which uses
consumable electrodes vs. nonconsumable electrodes. In electric arc
welding, a flow of electricity across the gap from the tip of the
welding electrode to the base metal creates the heat needed for melting
and joining the metal parts. The electric current melts both the
electrode and the base metal at the joint to form a molten pool, which
solidifies upon cooling. Consumable welding rods are used when extra
metal is needed as a filler for the joint to make a complete bond. The
consumable rods must be close in composition to the base metals, and
can vary with each application. An externally supplied gas (argon,
helium, or carbon dioxide) can be used to shield the arc.
2. Metal Fabrication and Finishing HAP Emission Sources
All five of the metal fabrication and finishing operations
described above can emit MFHAP. The MFHAP that can be emitted from the
metal fabrication and finishing operations are in the form of
particulate matter (PM) produced from the material being fabricated, PM
emitted from the use of consumable welding rods, and MFHAP used to
color paints (as pigments). In addition, there are VOHAP emitted from
painting operations, where the VOHAP are used as vehicles and solvents
for the paints. Details on the HAP emissions from each of the five
potential HAP-emitting operations follow below.
Dry Abrasive Blasting Emissions. The emissions from dry abrasive
blasting are predominantly inert PM resulting from breakdown of the
blast material which is composed of silica sand, glass beads, aluminum
oxide, slag, garnet, steel shot, walnut shells, and other materials.
Few if any blast materials contain MFHAP, therefore any MFHAP that is
emitted from blasting would originate from the part or product being
blasted. Occasionally the blasted part or product may be painted, in
which case the PM will contain additional MFHAP if present in the
pigments in the paint. Painted substrates are uncommon in the metal
fabrication and finishing industries, since these industries primarily
produce new products rather than recondition old ones. The blasted
substrates typically include metals such as: Cadmium, chromium
(primarily in stainless steel), iron, lead, magnesium, manganese (in
both mild and stainless steels), mercury, molybdenum, nickel (in
stainless steel), selenium, tin, vanadium, and zinc (in galvanized
steel). All five MFHAP are potential components of blasting substrates.
Dry Grinding and Dry Polishing Emissions. Some metal fabrication
and finishing machine operations, such as grinding and polishing, are
often times dry operations which can emit PM that can contain MFHAP.
Polishing by hand without the use of machines usually emits little or
no PM or MFHAP due to the low level of abrasion that potentially can be
induced by the worker's hands. All the PM or MFHAP in grinding and
polishing is produced from the work piece itself. Thus, the composition
of the PM and presence of MFHAP is dependent upon the metal being
worked. As above for blasting, the metal fabrication and finishing
substrates typically include metals such as: Cadmium, chromium
(primarily in stainless steel), iron, lead, magnesium, manganese (in
both mild and stainless steels), mercury, molybdenum, nickel (in
stainless steel), selenium, tin, vanadium, and zinc (in galvanized
steel). All five MFHAP are potential components of metal fabrication
and finishing substrates and therefore, are also potential emissions
from operations of dry grinding and dry polishing with machines.
Machining Emissions. Most of the machining operations in the metal
fabrication and finishing industry are totally enclosed, where the
enclosure is part of the equipment. Many of these operations use
lubricants or liquid coolants, either alone or in conjunction with
enclosures. Because any emissions generated by these machining
operations, which would be in the form of PM, are captured or entrained
in the liquid, little or no emissions are generated. Any MFHAP that is
released from machining would originate from the part or product being
machined.
Spray Painting Emissions. The sources of HAP emissions from spray
painting operations are the metal pigments and solvents that are in the
paints. A substantial fraction of paint that is atomized does not reach
the part and becomes what is termed ``overspray'' and generates HAP
emissions.
All five MFHAP are potential components of paint pigments that are
used to provide color to the paint. The MFHAP are emitted when the
paints are atomized during spray application. The proposed spray
painting requirements of this proposed rule would only apply to those
spray painting operations that spray-apply paints that contain MFHAP.
Paints are considered to contain MFHAP if they contain any individual
MFHAP at a concentration greater than 0.1 percent by mass. For the
purpose of determining whether paints contain MFHAP, facilities would
be able to use formulation data provided by the manufacturer or
supplier, such as the material safety data sheet, as long as it
represents each MFHAP compound in the paint that is present at 0.1
percent by mass or more for Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens and at 1.0 percent by mass or
more for other MFHAP compounds.
Paint solvents are used as vehicles for the paint pigments. These
solvents include VOHAP such as xylenes, toluene, phenol, cresols/
cresylic acid, glycol ethers (including ethylene glycol monobutyl
ether), styrene, methyl isobutyl ketone, and ethyl benzene. Paints used
in spray painting are thinned with solvents so that the paints are
fluid enough to be able to be delivered onto the parts and products via
narrow spray gun nozzles. The solvents are considered to be completely
volatilized during spray application of the paint and during curing or
drying. Most solvents contain HAP. The solvents may also consist of
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions which contribute to ozone
formation, an EPA-regulated criteria pollutant.
The remaining HAP emissions are primarily from cleaning operations,
such as cleaning of spray guns. The HAP emissions from both the
cleaning solvent and the paint removed from the gun can be emitted
during cleaning. Solvents used for equipment cleaning may contain the
same HAP as the paints they remove. The HAP Emissions from gun cleaning
are minimized when cleaning is performed in a manner such that an
atomized mist or spray of gun cleaning solvent and paint residue is not
created outside of a container that collects used gun cleaning solvent.
[[Page 18341]]
Mixing and storage are other sources of HAP emissions. The HAP
emissions can occur from displacement of HAP-laden air in containers
used to store HAP solvents or to mix paints containing HAP solvents.
The displacement of vapor-laden air also can be caused by changes in
temperature or barometric pressure, or by agitation during mixing.
Welding Emissions. The type of welding most commonly used in the
metal fabrication and finishing source categories is thought to be
electric arc welding. This is also the type of welding that can produce
the most MFHAP emissions, since a consumable electrode is used.
Emissions from welding are in the form of a fume, which is defined to
be particles that are small enough to be airborne for extended periods
of time and are visible to the human eye. The size of particles in
welding fume is highly variable with an average size around 1
micrometer ([mu]m), corresponding to what is commonly called the
``fume'' size range. Welding fumes have a bimodal distribution, with
maximum concentrations in ``coarse'' (approximately 1.5 [mu]m) and
``fine'' (0.52 [mu]m) particle size ranges.
Welding fumes are a product of the base metal being welded, the
consumable welding electrode or wire, the shielding gas, and any
surface coatings or contaminants on the base metal. As much as 95
percent of the welding fume is thought to originate from the melting of
the electrode or wire consumable. Welding fume constituents may include
silica and fluorides, used to aid the welding operation, and HAP metals
such as antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cobalt, mercury, and selenium, in
addition to the five MFHAP: Cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and
nickel. As noted above for dry abrasive blasting, chromium and nickel
are found primarily in stainless steel, whereas manganese is found in
both mild and stainless steels.
Among the electric arc welding operations that use a consumable
electrode, shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) is used in more than 50
percent of welding. SMAW also was the first welding type to use a
consumable electrode and suits most general purpose welding
applications. SMAW, also called manual metal arc welding (MMAW) or
``stick'' possibly because it uses replaceable welding electrode rods
that look like sticks, has a high fume formation rate as compared to
other welding operations. The advantages of SMAW welding include its
simplicity, low cost, portability, and the fact that a shielding gas is
not needed. One restriction of SMAW is that since it uses metal rods
that must be replaced, it is slower than the welding operations which
use continuous electrodes.
Another type of welding that uses a consumable electrode and has a
high fume formation rate is fluxed-core arc welding (FCAW). High fume
formation occurs because the weld material is a liquid or ``flux'' and
not a solid wire, and therefore is more volatile.
Gas metal arc welding (GMAW), originally called metal inert gas
(MIG) welding because it used an inert gas for shielding, has a
moderate fume formation rate as compared to other welding operations.
The advantages of GMAW include its ability to be operated in
semiautomatic or automatic modes. It is the only consumable welding
type that can weld all commercially important metals, such as carbon
steel, high-strength low alloy steel, stainless steel, nickel alloys,
titanium, aluminum, and copper. With GMAW, a weld can be performed in
all positions with the proper choice of electrode, shielding gas, and
welding variables. Compared to SMAW, the rate of deposition of the
electrode material and therefore welding rate is higher than with GMAW.
The disadvantage is that the equipment for GMAW is more complex, more
expensive, and less portable than SMAW.
Another type of welding that uses a consumable electrode and has a
low fume formation rate is submerged arc welding (SAW). In this type of
welding, the welding rod is not exposed to the atmosphere which lowers
the potential for emissions.
Two welding operations that use non-consumable electrodes are gas
tungsten arc welding (GTAW) that is also called tungsten inert gas
(TIG), and plasma arc welding (PAW). Because consumable electrodes are
not used, this type of welding has low or no emissions.
The choice of welding method is determined by many variables that
include but are not limited to substrate material and shape; type of
weld needed; skill of welder; and amount of welding to be done,
therefore, a change from one type of welding to another is not always
possible.
The shape of the material is another variable that can affect fume
formation rate. It also has been found that when the angle of welding
is closer to 90[deg], lower fume formation occurs. If the shape of the
part to be welded prevents re-positioning the welding equipment, this
pollution prevention technique also cannot be used.
In terms of welding rod feed rate, it has been found that the
higher the wire feed rate the higher the fume formation rate. Also, a
low fume welding rod that reduces fume by 30 percent as compared to
other available products has been reported as recently available for
use with FCAW. Minor effects to reduce fume formation rate have also
been attributed to the speed that the welding torch moves along the
weld, i.e., the ``travel speed.''
Carrier or shielding gas type and flow rate are also variables that
have been found to affect welding fume formation rate. Substitution of
argon gas reduces the fume formation rate. A reduction in fume of
approximately 40 percent has been reported if argon is replaced as the
shielding gas. The shield gas flowrate also can be optimized, with 35
cubic feet per hour the reported optimum rate. This rate is in the
middle of the usual operating range and is thought to be low enough to
minimize turbulence but high enough to protect the worker.
Voltage and current play a key role in the welding fume formation
rate. While low voltage and/or current is known to lower the fume
formation rate, the use of a pulsed current has been found to lower
fume formation by up to 90 percent of the rate with straight current
for some types of welding operations. The reduction in welding fume
with a pulsed current is due to the change in metal electrode transfer
mode from globular to spray, that results from moderately increasing
the voltage and delivering a pulsed rather than steady current. There
is also a voltage window in which the fume rate reduction occurs, since
with too high voltage, a shift from spray to stream mode occurs along
with a subsequent increase in emissions. Pulsed current is only
successful if used with GMAW, which is itself a pollution prevention
technique since it has one of the lowest fume formation rates of
welding performed with consumable electrodes.
Welding emissions have been found to be reduced when automation is
used. Since automated welding is faster and more efficient than manual
welding, total emissions are lower even though the overall fume
formation rate of the automated welding remains the same as with manual
welding.
Emissions of MFHAP in welding fume are also subject to regulations
by the OSHA, a U.S. government agency that develops work place emission
standards. The sole goal of OSHA regulations is to protect the worker
from being exposed to high concentrations of pollutants, such as MFAP.
The OSHA regulations set standards for MFHAP concentration as measured
in the breathing zone of the workers, as a time-weighted average over
the time period of a typical work shift (usually 6 hours
[[Page 18342]]
or more). The OSHA limits for MFHAP are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA limit
(micrograms
Welding MFHAP per cubic
meter)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
cadmium fume............................................ 5
chromium, hexavalent.................................... 5
chromium, total metal................................... 1,000
lead.................................................... 50
manganese............................................... 5,000
nickel.................................................. 1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OSHA hexavalent chromium exposure limit was reduced in 2006 from 52
to 5 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\). The American Conference
of Government Industrial Hygienists, an association of occupational
health professionals, recommends a worker exposure limit for ``total
welding fume'' of 5,000 [mu]g/m\3\.
3. Metal Fabrication and Finishing HAP Emission Controls
A variety of methods is used to control emissions from the metal
fabrication and finishing operations. Some methods are designed to
reduce emissions through pollution prevention or management practices,
and other methods involve capturing emissions and exhausting them to an
add-on emission control device. The most widely-used methods of control
employed by the metal fabrication and finishing operations are
discussed below.
Dry Abrasive Blasting Controls. Small self-contained ``glove box''
dry abrasive blasting operations are used for small parts and typically
have no vents to the atmosphere, thus no emissions. These devices are
considered controlled operations as typically operated. When using
glove boxes, the worker places their hands in openings or gloves that
extend into the box and enables the worker to hold the objects as they
are being blasted without allowing air and blast material to escape the
box. Because of the proximity of the worker to the glove box and the
blasting operation, no abrasive material can be allowed to be emitted.
Larger dry abrasive blasting operations are performed in enclosures
and are typically equipped with cartridge filters or other external
add-on control devices that collect degraded or ``used'' blast material
and particles removed from the parts or products. These control
systems, which consist of enclosures and filters, can achieve at least
95 percent control of PM, as a surrogate for MFHAP, if operated
according to the manufacturer's specifications. Used blast material is
recycled via screening, sieving, or other methods to remove degraded
media and return the blast material to its original condition.
Significant cost savings are realized through recycling of the blast
material. Some dry abrasive blasting operations are not completely
enclosed, or are performed outdoors. Emissions from these operations
are controlled or reduced via partial enclosures and also the use of
management practices. These practices include good choice of blast
media which is less likely to break down into fine PM; avoiding re-use
of blast media, or filtration of blast media to remove broken
particles; and avoiding blasting outside during periods of high winds.
Dry Grinding and Dry Polishing with Machines Controls. These
machine operations emit significant metal PM if uncontrolled,
therefore, these operations, if not totally enclosed, use control
systems to control the PM emitted. The control systems are composed of
local capture devices with cartridge, fabric, or high-efficiency
particulate air (HEPA) filters as control devices. These control
systems are known to achieve 85 percent overall control of PM, as a
surrogate for MFHAP, considering the efficiency of both the capture and
control devices. The large amount of fine PM generated during these
operations would make the work environment unbearable for the workers
if not controlled, hence constant PM control is standard industry
practice and an integral part of all dry grinding and dry polishing
with machine operations at metal fabrication and finishing facilities.
Machining Controls. The MFHAP emitted by machining operations
consist of large particles or metal shavings that are so large they
immediately fall to the floor. The machines used today to perform
precision cutting and forming are totally enclosed except for doors
that open to allow placement of the part to be machined. The doors are
closed before the machining begins; therefore, no MFHAP or PM is
emitted into the workplace during machining operations. Some machining
operations also use lubricants and cutting oils to keep the equipment
cooled and working properly and, therefore, concurrently entrain any
fine particles that are generated. These ``wet'' machining operations
also do not generate any MFHAP or PM emissions during operation. This
industry has evolved since 1990, where machining operations were open
and a large source of PM and MFHAP, to the current industry practice of
totally enclosing the machining operations.
Spray Painting Controls. There are three primary means of
controlling emissions from painting operations: Reduction of overspray;
capture of overspray with a spray booth and control of the MFHAP by
filtration or a water scrubbing system; and changes to paint
composition to reduce solvent and VOHAP content.
Reduction of overspray can have a significant effect on emissions
of both MFHAP and VOHAP. The fraction of applied paint that becomes
overspray depends on many variables, but two of the most important are
the type of equipment and the skill of the painter. High velocity low
pressure spray guns or other high-efficiency technologies, such as
airless spray guns or electrostatic technologies, can significantly
reduce the amount of overspray, and thus reduce emissions. Worker
training is particularly important with these technologies, because
they require even experienced painters to learn new techniques. Many
types of training programs are available and many facilities perform
their own training ``in-house.'' The best known of the external
training programs is the Spray Technique Analysis and Research
(STAR[supreg]) program study that originated at the University of
Northern Iowa Waste Reduction Center and has now been adopted at 37
locations (primarily community colleges) throughout the United States.
Some overspray lands on surfaces of the spray booth and the masking
paper that is usually placed around the surface being sprayed, but the
rest of the overspray is contained by the spray booth and drawn into
the spray booth exhaust system. The large amount of PM generated during
paint spraying makes it necessary to control the PM emitted at all
times to protect the worker and working environment. If the spray booth
has filters, most of the overspray PM and metals are captured by the
filters; otherwise, the emissions are exhausted to the atmosphere.
Spray booths controlled by fabric filters can reduce PM and MFHAP
emissions by 98 percent, if operated properly. Water curtains can also
be used for controlling emissions from spray booths.
As a result of efforts to reduce the impact of HAP- and VOC-
containing paint solvents on the environment, many paint manufacturers
have developed lower solvent-content paints, also referred to as
``water-based'' paints. Water-based paints may have up to 30 percent
VOHAP-containing solvent, with the balance of the paint vehicle
consisting of water; however, the level of solvent in water-based
paints is much less than the previous 80 percent or
[[Page 18343]]
more VOHAP that is contained in solvent-based paints. As a result of
the lower VOHAP solvent content, water-based paints in general have a
lower VOHAP content than solvent-based paints. The regulations
promulgated to fulfill section 112 of the CAA for major sources had a
direct effect on increasing the market availability of lower-HAP and -
VOC paints in all market areas, including miscellaneous metal parts,
plastic parts, large appliances, autobody refinishing, and
architectural and industrial maintenance coatings. Many State air
toxics regulations require the use of commonly called ``compliant
coatings,'' where the only paints or coatings allowed to be used in
certain areas must contain a solvent content lower than a designated
level in order to be ``compliant'' with the regulation. The use of
compliant coatings is a pollution prevention control method.
Some regulations which require compliant coatings set one limit for
all paints while others require different limits depending on the
purpose of the paint. Other regulations permit a weighted averaging of
the solvent content of the paints used, where facilities are permitted
to use paints with higher solvent contents as long as their use is
offset by paints with lower solvent content. This latter method of
compliance is considered a more flexible approach that allows
facilities to balance their use of solvents to where it is needed most.
In addition, some facilities may choose to use add-on controls such as
solvent recovery units, thermal incineration, or carbon absorbers to
control VOHAP emissions for situations where the solvent content cannot
be reduced to a compliant coating level. These add-on controls are
known to achieve at least 95 percent control of VOHAP.
Welding Controls. Many different welding operations are commonly
used in the metal fabrication and finishing industry, as discussed
above under welding emissions. Consequently, there are many possible
means of reducing emissions. Not all control methods are appropriate
for all types of welding operations, however, and thus there is no one
``best'' method to reduce welding fume or PM, as a surrogate for MFHAP.
The two primary categories of emission control for welding are fume
reduction through pollution prevention and management practices, and
capture and control of the welding fume.
The primary variable in pollution prevention for welding is the
type of welding wire or electrode used. Over 95 percent of welding fume
is thought to originate from the filler or electrode material with the
remainder coming from the base material. If the wire consists of MFHAP-
containing material, such as chromium or nickel, then the emissions of
these MFHAP are more likely. Since the weld or wire material must
closely match the material being welded in order to be effective, the
choice of weld material may not be able to be altered by the facility
for some or all of its products. For example, if stainless steel is a
required material due to the specifications of the part or product by
the customers, the potential for chromium emissions in these operations
cannot be prevented.
The choice of welding type, which impacts the potential fume
formation rate, also provides opportunities for pollution prevention.
The type of welding method used at metal fabrication and finishing
facilities is determined by many variables that include but are not
limited to substrate material and shape; type of weld needed; skill of
welder; and amount of welding to be done. Therefore, a change from one
type of welding to another is not always possible.
Welding which does not use a consumable electrode has a much lower
emission potential, as noted above in the ``Welding Emissions''
discussion. Two common welding operations that use non-consumable
electrodes are GTAW, also called TIG, and PAW. Switching from welding
that uses a consumable electrode to one of the above operations that
does not use a consumable electrode is a form of pollution prevention.
Among the welding operations that use a consumable electrode, SMAW,
also called MMAW or ``stick,'' is the most widely used electric arc
welding. However, SMAW has a high fume formation rate as compared to
other welding operations. Another welding type that also has a high
fume formation rate is FCAW. GMAW, also called MIG, has a moderate fume
formation rate as compared to other welding operations. The
disadvantage of GMAW is that the equipment for GMAW is more complex,
more expensive, and less portable than SMAW. Another type of welding
that uses consumable electrodes and has a relatively lower fume
formation rate is SAW. Switching from welding that has a relatively
higher fume formation rate, such as SMAW or FCAW, to one that has a
lower rate, such as GMAW or SAW, is a form of pollution prevention.
Other welding variables have been determined to have a favorable
effect on fume formation rates. Optimizing these variables for the
specific task at hand is a form of pollution prevention. These
variables include optimized welding rod feed rate, use of low fume
welding rods; fast welding torch travel speed; optimized carrier or
shielding gas flow rate; substitution of inert shielding gas, such as
argon, for carbon dioxide shielding gas; lowering the welding voltage;
pulsing the applied current; and the use of automation, i.e., robotics.
Note that pulsing the current is only successful if used with GMAW,
which is itself a pollution prevention technique since it has one of
the lowest fume formation rates for welding performed with consumable
electrodes.
In addition to the numerous management and pollution prevention
practices that reduce welding fume generation, some facilities use
capture and control devices to collect welding fume after it is
generated. Hoods and other local exhaust techniques are used to collect
the welding fume which is then vented to cartridge, fabric, or HEPA
filters. Some of these control systems may only partially capture the
welding fume. The advantage of using local capture systems as opposed
to room ventilation is that it provides the ability to move the control
device to different welding stations as needed. Very few facilities in
the metal fabrication and finishing source categories use full room
ventilation and PM control to reduce welding emissions. This is due to
the competing requirements to ventilate the breathing zone of the
worker to comply with OSHA regulations and the need to minimize the
amount of exhaust air going to ventilation and add-on control devices.
The use of control systems is not always possible because the
capture systems may affect the air flow pattern around welding
operations and, therefore, interfere with the success of the weld.
Another difficulty with local exhaust is the need to position and
sometimes reposition the capture equipment so as to be most effective
during welding operations without causing more fumes to enter the
breathing zone of the worker.
Fume control welding guns, commonly called fume guns, have been
developed where the welding fume is captured by the same device that
performs the welding. Mixed success has been reported with these
devices because of problems with the ergonomics of using the fume guns.
In the EPA survey of metal fabrication and finishing facilities,
only 20 percent of facilities with welding stations used controls
devices or fume guns. These control systems are known to achieve 85
percent overall PM control efficiency, as a surrogate for MFHAP,
considering the efficiency of both the capture and control devices.
[[Page 18344]]
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
A. Do the proposed standards apply to my source?
The proposed subpart XXXXXX applies to new or existing affected
metal fabrication and finishing area sources in one of the following
nine source categories (listed alphabetically) that emit MFHAP: (1)
Electrical and Electronic Equipment Finishing Operations; (2)
Fabricated Metal Products; (3) Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler Shops);
(4) Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing; (5) Heating Equipment,
except Electric; (6) Industrial Machinery and Equipment: Finishing
Operations; (7) Iron and Steel Forging; (8) Primary Metal Products
Manufacturing; and (9) Valves and Pipe Fittings. A more detailed
description of these source categories can be found in section II(B)
above. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority
for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR
63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions). Facilities affected by this
proposed rule are not subject to the miscellaneous coating requirements
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH, ``National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface
Coating Operations at Area Sources,'' for their source(s) subject to
the requirements of this proposed rule. There potentially may be other
sources at the facility not subject to the requirements of this
proposed rule that are instead subject to subpart HHHHHH of this part.
B. When must I comply with these proposed standards?
All existing area source facilities subject to this proposed rule
would be required to comply with the rule requirements no later than 2
years after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register.
C. For what processes is EPA proposing standards?
In our research for this proposed rule, we found that there are
five general production operations common to the nine metal fabrication
and finishing source categories that can emit MFHAP. These five
production operations are: (1) Dry abrasive blasting; (2) dry grinding
and dry polishing with machines; (3) machining; (4) spray painting; and
(5) welding. In our review of the available data, we observed
significant differences for some of the five metal fabrication and
finishing operations. As explained below, as the result of these
differences we have further differentiated some of the above five
operations. We identify below nine distinct metal fabrication and
finishing processes for the purposes of this proposed rule.
For dry abrasive blasting operations, we determined that there were
two distinct sizes of products being blasted that affected the manner
in which the blasting was performed: products more than 8 feet in any
dimension, and products equal to or less than 8 feet. For products
under 8 feet, we also observed that some of these products were blasted
in completely enclosed chambers that did not allow any air or emissions
to escape. Therefore, we developed three distinct dry abrasive blasting
processes: (1) Dry abrasive blasting of objects less than or equal to 8
feet in any dimension in completely enclosed and unvented blast
chambers; (2) dry abrasive blasting of objects less than or equal to 8
feet in any dimension performed in vented enclosures, and (3) dry
abrasive blasting of objects greater than 8 feet in any dimension.
In spray painting operations that emit MFHAP, we also determined
that there were two distinct sizes of products being painted that
affected the manner in which the process was performed: products more
than 15 feet in any dimension, and products equal to or less than 15
feet in any dimension. Therefore we developed two distinct spray
painting processes: (1) Spray painting of objects less than or equal to
15 feet in any dimension, and (2) spray painting of objects greater
than 15 feet in any dimension. However, for the purposes of controlling
VOHAP, we did not distinguish between object size, therefore the
standards proposed for control of VOHAP emissions from spray painting
includes only one proposed GACT requirement.
For dry grinding and dry polishing with machines, machining, and
welding, we did not observe any distinct differences that would warrant
further distinguishing the operations into separate processes.
Therefore, these three processes combined with the three for dry
abrasive blasting and three for painting results described above,
results in nine total processes addressed by this proposed rule, as
follows: (1) Dry abrasive blasting objects less than or equal to 8 feet
in any dimension, performed in completely enclosed and unvented blast
chambers; (2) dry abrasive blasting of objects less than or equal to 8
feet in any dimension, performed in vented enclosures; (3) dry abrasive
blasting of objects greater than 8 feet in any dimension; (4) dry
grinding and dry polishing with machines; (5) machining; (6) control of
VOHAP from spray painting; (7) control of MFHAP in the spray painting
of objects less than or equal to 15 feet in any dimension; (8) control
of MFHAP in the spray painting of objects greater than 15 feet in any
dimension; and (9) welding.
D. What emissions control requirements is EPA proposing?
We are proposing control requirements for nine metal fabrication
and finishing processes described above in section (C). The following
is a description of these proposed control requirements. The emission
control requirements proposed here do not apply to tool or equipment
repair; or research and development operations.
1. Standards for Dry Abrasive Blasting of Objects Less Than or Equal To
8 Feet in Any Dimension, Performed in Completely Enclosed and Unvented
Blast Chambers
Completely enclosed and unvented blast chambers are generally small
``glove box'' type dry abrasive blasting operations. Because there are
no vents or openings in the enclosures, there are no emissions directly
from the operation itself.
This proposed rule would require owners or operators of completely
enclosed and unvented blast chambers to comply with the following two
management and pollution prevention practices: (1) Minimize dust
generation during emptying of the enclosure; and (2) operate all
equipment used in the blasting operation according to manufacturer's
instructions.
2. Standards for Dry Abrasive Blasting of Objects Less than or Equal to
8 Feet in Any Dimension, Performed in Vented Enclosures
This proposed rule would require owners or operators of affected
new and existing dry abrasive blasting operations blasting substrates
of less than or equal to 8 feet in any dimension to perform blasting
with a control system that includes an enclosure, as a capture device,
and a cartridge, fabric or HEPA filter as a control device that is
designed to control PM emissions, as a surrogate for MFHAP, from the
process. These control systems using filters can achieve at least 95
percent control efficiency of PM, as a surrogate for MFHAP, if operated
according to the manufacturer's specifications.
An enclosure is defined to be any structure that includes a roof
and at least two complete walls, with side curtains and ventilation as
needed to insure that no air or PM exits the chamber while blasting is
performed. Apertures or slots may be present in the
[[Page 18345]]
roof or walls to allow for transport of the blasted objects using
overhead cranes, or cable and cord entry into the blasting chamber.
Facilities that would like to use equipment other than those listed
above can seek approval to do so pursuant to the procedures in Sec.
63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63, which require the owner
or operator to demonstrate that the alternative means of emission
limitation achieves at least equivalent HAP emission reductions as the
controls specified in this proposed rule.
This proposed rule also would require owners or operators of all
affected new and existing dry abrasive blasting operations blasting
substrates of less than or equal to 8 feet in any dimension to comply
with the following three management and pollution prevention practices:
(1) Keep work areas free of excess dust by regular sweeping or
vacuuming to control the accumulation of dust and other particles;
regular sweeping or vacuuming is defined to be sweeping or vacuuming
conducted once per day, once per shift, or once per operation as
needed, depending on the severity of dust generation; (2) enclose dusty
material storage areas and holding bins, seal chutes and conveyors; and
(3) operate all equipment according to manufacturer's instructions.
3. Standards for Dry Abrasive Blasting of Objects Greater Than 8 Feet
in Any Dimension
This proposed rule would require owners or operators of affected
new and existing dry abrasive blasting operations that blast substrates
greater than 8 feet in any dimension to comply with the following
management and pollution prevention practices to minimize MFHAP
emissions from the processes: (1) Do not perform blasting outside when
wind velocity is greater than 25 miles per hour; (2) switch from high
PM-emitting blast media (e.g., sand) to low PM-emitting blast media
(e.g., steel shot, aluminum oxide), whenever practicable; (3) do not
blast substrates having coatings containing lead (>0.1 percent lead),
unless enclosures, barriers, or other PM control methods are used to
collect the lead particles; and (4) do not re-use the blast media
unless contaminants (i.e., any material other than the base metal, such
as paint residue) have been removed by filtration or screening so that
the abrasive material conforms to its original size and makeup.
This proposed rule would also require owners or operators of
affected dry abrasive blasting operations that blast substrates greater
than 8 feet in any dimension to comply with the following three
management and pollution prevention practices: (1) Keep work areas free
of excess dust by regular sweeping or vacuuming to control the
accumulation of dust and other particles; regular sweeping or vacuuming
is defined to be sweeping or vacuuming conducted once per day, once per
shift, or once per operation as needed, depending on the severity of
dust generation; (2) enclose dusty material storage areas and holding
bins, seal chutes and conveyors; and (3) operate all equipment
according to manufacturer's instructions.
4. Standards for Dry Grinding and Dry Polishing With Machines
Dry grinding and dry polishing with machines operations often emit
significant PM, which is a surrogate for MFPM. This proposed rule would
require owners or operators of affected new and existing dry grinding
and dry polishing with machines operations to capture PM emissions, as
a surrogate for MFHAP, with capture devices and vent the exhaust to a
cartridge, fabric, or HEPA filter. These control systems are known to
achieve at least 85 percent overall PM control efficiency, as a
surrogate for MFHAP, if operated according to the manufacturer's
specifications. Facilities that would like to use equipment other than
those listed above can seek approval to do so pursuant to the
procedures in Sec. 63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63, which
require the owner or operator to demonstrate that the alternative means
of emission limitation achieves at least equivalent HAP emission
reductions as the controls specified in this proposed rule.
This proposed rule would also require owners or operators of
affected new and existing dry grinding and dry polishing with machines
operations to comply with the following two management and pollution
prevention practices: (1) Keep work areas free of excess dust by
regular sweeping or vacuuming to control the accumulation of dust and
other particles; regular sweeping or vacuuming is defined to be
sweeping or vacuuming conducted once per day, once per shift, or once
per operation as needed, depending on the severity of dust generation;
and (2) operate all equipment used in dry grinding and dry polishing
with machines according to manufacturer's instructions.
5. Standards for Machining
The majority of the PM released by machining operations consists of
large particles or metal shavings that fall immediately to the floor.
Any MFHAP that is released would originate from the part or product
being machined. Machining is totally enclosed and/or uses lubricants or
liquid coolants that do not allow small particles to escape. This
proposed rule would require owners or operators of affected new and
existing machining operations to comply with the following two
management and pollution prevention practices to minimize dust
generation in the workplace: (1) Keep work areas free of excess dust by
regular sweeping or vacuuming to control the accumulation of dust and
other particles; regular sweeping or vacuuming is defined to be
sweeping or vacuuming conducted once per day, once per shift, or once
per operation as needed, depending on the severity of dust generation;
and (2) operate equipment used in machining operations according to
manufacturer's instructions.
6. Standards for Control of VOHAP from Spray Painting Operations
Spray painting operations can be significant sources of VOHAP
emissions. This proposed rule would require owners or operators of
spray painting operations from affected sources that have the potential
to emit VOHAP to use paints containing no more than 3.0 pounds VOHAP
per gallon paint solids (0.36 kilograms per liter (kg/liter)) on an
annual (12-month) rolling average basis. Two methods of complying with
this standard are provided. One option would require that all paints
are demonstrated as meeting the VOHAP limit. The second option would
require facilities to meet the VOHAP limit using a 12-month rolling
weighted average. In this second option, some paints can be above the
VOHAP limit as long as their use is balanced by other paints that are
below the limit, such that the overall weighted average of all paints
and their VOHAP content is calculated to be at or below the VOHAP limit
that would be required by this proposed rule.
This proposed rule would also require owners or operators of new
and existing spray painting operations that have the potential to emit
VOHAP to comply with the following two management and pollution
prevention practices: (1) Minimize VOHAP emissions during mixing,
storage, and transfer of paints; and (2) keep paint and solvent lids
tightly closed when not in use.
Based on reasonable assumptions about the practices included in the
1990 112(k) urban HAP inventory, we have concluded that painting
processes that contributed to VOHAP and MFHAP emissions in these source
categories most likely did not include the following materials or
activities and,
[[Page 18346]]
therefore, we do not cover these materials or activities in this
proposed rule:
(1) Paints applied from a hand-held device with a paint cup
capacity that is less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cubic centimeters);
(2) Surface coating application using powder coating, hand-held,
non-refillable aerosol containers, or non-atomizing application
technology, including, but not limited to, paint brushes, rollers, hand
wiping, flow coating, dip coating, electrodeposition coating, web
coating, coil coating, touch-up markers, or marking pens;
(3) Any painting or coating that normally requires the use of an
airbrush or an extension on the spray gun to properly reach limited
access spaces; or the application of paints or coatings that contain
fillers that adversely affect atomization with high velocity low
pressure (HVLP) or equivalent spray guns, and the application of
coatings that normally have a dried film thickness of less than 0.0013
centimeter (0.0005 in.).
7. Standards for Control of MFHAP from Spray Painting of Objects
Greater Than 15 Feet in Any Dimension
This proposed rule would require owners or operators of affected
new and existing spray painting of objects greater than 15 feet in any
dimension to comply with one equipment standard, to use of low-emitting
and pollution preventing spray gun technology. This proposed rule also
would require two management practices: (1) Spray painter training and
(2) spray gun cleaning.
Based on reasonable assumptions about the practices included in the
1990 112(k) urban HAP inventory, we have concluded that painting
processes that contributed to MFHAP emissions in these source
categories most likely did not include the following materials or
activities, and, therefore, we do not cover these materials or
activities in this proposed rule:
(1) Paints applied from a hand-held device with a paint cup
capacity that is less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cubic centimeters);
(2) Surface coating application using powder coating, hand-held,
non-refillable aerosol containers, or non-atomizing application
technology, including, but not limited to, paint brushes, rollers, hand
wiping, flow coating, dip coating, electrodeposition coating, web
coating, coil coating, touch-up markers, or marking pens;
(3) Any painting or coating that normally requires the use of an
airbrush or an extension on the spray gun to properly reach limited
access spaces; or the application of paints or coatings that contain
fillers that adversely affect atomization with HVLP or equivalent spray
guns, and the application of coatings that normally have a dried film
thickness of less than 0.0013 centimeter (0.0005 in.).
Spray painting also does not include thermal spray operations, also
known as metallizing, flame spray, plasma arc spray, and electric arc
spray, among other names, in which solid metallic or non-metallic
material is heated to a molten or semi-molten state and propelled to
the work piece or substrate by compressed air or other gas, where a
bond is produced upon impact. Thermal spraying operations at area
sources are subject to the Plating and Polishing Area Source NESHAP,
subpart WWWWWW of this part.
Spray Gun Technology Requirements. This proposed rule would require
all affected new and existing facilities using spray-applied paints to
use HVLP spray guns, electrostatic application, or airless spray
techniques. Alternatively, an equivalent technology can be used if it
is demonstrated to achieve transfer efficiency comparable to one of the
spray gun technologies listed above for a comparable operation, and for
which written approval has been obtained from the Administrator or
delegated authority.
The procedure to be used to demonstrate that spray gun transfer
efficiency is equivalent to that of an HVLP spray gun should be
equivalent to the California South Coast Air Quality Management
District's ``Spray Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test Procedure for
Equipment User, May 24, 1989'' and ``Guidelines for Demonstrating
Equivalency with District Approved Transfer Efficient Spray Guns,
September 26, 2002'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14 of
subpart A of this part). The Director of the Federal Register approves
this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from the California South Coast
Air Quality Management District Web site at http://www.aqmd.gov/permit/docspdf/TransferEfficiencyTestingGuidelinesforHVLPEquivalency.pdf and
http://www.aqmd.gov/permit/docspdf/Spray-Eqpt-Trfr-Efficiency.pdf. You
may inspect a copy at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA,
call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. The proposed
requirements of this paragraph do not apply to painting performed by
students and instructors at paint training centers.
Spray Painting Training Requirements. This proposed rule would
require all workers that perform spray painting at affected new and
existing facilities to be trained, with certification made available
that this training has occurred. The painters would need to be
certified as having completed classroom and hands-on training in the
proper selection, mixing, and application of paints, or the equivalent.
Refresher training would need to be repeated at least once every 5
years. These requirements would not apply to operators of robotic or
automated surface painting operations. The initial and refresher
training would need to address the following topics to reduce paint
overspray, which has a direct effect on emissions reductions, as
follows:
Spray gun equipment selection, set up, and operation,
including measuring paint viscosity, selecting the proper fluid tip or
nozzle, and achieving the proper spray pattern, air pressure and
volume, and fluid delivery rate.
Spray technique for different types of paints to improve
transfer efficiency and minimize paint usage and overspray, including
maintaining the correct spray gun distance and angle to the part, using
proper banding and overlap, and reducing lead and lag spraying at the
beginning and end of each stroke.
Routine spray booth and filter maintenance, including
filter selection and installation.
For the purposes of the proposed training requirements, the
facility owner or operator may certify that their employees have
completed training during ``in-house'' training programs. Also,
facilities that can show by documentation or certification that a
painter's work experience and/or training has resulted in training
equivalent to the training described above would not be required to
provide the initial training required for these painters.
Spray painters have 180 days to complete training after hiring or
transferring into a surface painting job from another job in the
facility. These proposed training requirements would not apply to the
students of an accredited surface painting training program who are
under the direct supervision of an instructor who meets the
requirements of this paragraph. The training and certification for this
rule would be valid for a period not to exceed 5 years after the date
the training is completed.
[[Page 18347]]
Spray Gun Cleaning Requirements. This proposed rule would require
all paint spray gun cleaning operations at affected new and existing
facilities to use an atomized mist or spray such that the gun cleaning
solvent and paint residue is not created outside of the container that
collects the used gun cleaning solvent. Spray gun cleaning may be done,
for example, by hand cleaning of parts of the disassembled gun in a
container of solvent, by flushing solvent through the gun without
atomizing the solvent and paint residue, or by using a fully enclosed
spray gun washer. A combination of these non-atomizing methods above
may also be used.
8. Standards for Control of MFHAP From Spray Painting Objects Less Than
or Equal to 15 Feet in Any Dimension
This proposed rule would require affected new and existing
facilities that are spray painting objects less than or equal to 15
feet in any dimension to comply with two equipment standards: (1) Use
of low-emitting and pollution preventing spray gun technology, and (2)
use of spray booth PM filters. This proposed rule also would require
two management practices: (1) Spray painter training; and (2) spray gun
cleaning.
Based on reasonable assumptions about the practices included in the
1990 112(k) urban HAP inventory, we have concluded that painting
processes that contributed to MFHAP emissions in these source
categories most likely did not include the following materials or
activities:
(1) Paints applied from a hand-held device with a paint cup
capacity that is less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cubic centimeters);
(2) Surface coating application using powder coating, hand-held,
non-refillable aerosol containers, or non-atomizing application
technology, including, but not limited to, paint brushes, rollers, hand
wiping, flow coating, dip coating, electrodeposition coating, web
coating, coil coating, touch-up markers, or marking pens;
(3) Any painting or coating that normally requires the use of an
airbrush or an extension on the spray gun to properly reach limited
access spaces; or the application of paints or coatings that contain
fillers that adversely affect atomization with HVLP or equivalent spray
guns, and the application of coatings that normally have a dried film
thickness of less than 0.0013 centimeter (0.0005 in.).
Spray painting also does not include thermal spray operations, also
known as metallizing, flame spray, plasma arc spray, and electric arc
spray, among other names, in which solid metallic or non-metallic
material is heated to a molten or semi-molten state and propelled to
the work piece or substrate by compressed air or other gas, where a
bond is produced upon impact. Thermal spraying operations at area
sources are subject to the Plating and Polishing Area Source NESHAP,
subpart WWWWWW of this part.
Spray Gun Technology Standards. This proposed rule would require
all affected new and existing facilities using spray-applied paints to
use HVLP spray guns, electrostatic application, or airless spray
techniques. Alternatively, an equivalent technology can be used if it
is demonstrated to achieve transfer efficiency comparable to one of the
spray gun technologies listed above for a comparable operation, and for
which written approval has been obtained from the Administrator or
delegated authority.
The procedure to be used to demonstrate that spray gun transfer
efficiency is equivalent to that of an HVLP spray gun should be
equivalent to the California South Coast Air Quality Management
District's ``Spray Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test Procedure for
Equipment User, May 24, 1989'' and ``Guidelines for Demonstrating
Equivalency with District Approved Transfer Efficient Spray Guns,
September 26, 2002'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14 of
subpart A of this part). The Director of the Federal Register approves
this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from the California South Coast
Air Quality Management District Web site at http://www.aqmd.gov/permit/docspdf/TransferEfficiencyTestingGuidelinesforHVLPEquivalency.pdf and
http://www.aqmd.gov/permit/docspdf/Spray-Eqpt-Trfr-Efficiency.pdf. You
may inspect a copy at the NARA. For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. The requirements of this paragraph would not apply to
painting performed by students and instructors at paint training
centers.
Spray Booth PM Control Requirement. This proposed rule would
require the surface preparation stations or spray booths \3\ of
affected new and existing facilities to be fitted with fiberglass or
polyester fiber filters or other comparable filter technology that can
be demonstrated to achieve at least 98 percent control efficiency of
paint overspray (also referred to as ``arrestance''). As an alternate
compliance option, spray booths can be equipped with a water curtain,
called a ``waterwash'' or ``waterspray'' booth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The spray booth roof may contain narrow slots for connecting
the parts and products to overhead cranes, or for cord or cable
entry into the spray booth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
98 Percent PM Control Filter--For spray booths equipped with a PM
filter, the procedure used to demonstrate filter efficiency would need
to be consistent with the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating,
and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Method 52.1, ``Gravimetric and
Dust-Spot Procedures for Testing Air-Cleaning Devices Used in General
Ventilation for Removing Particulate Matter, June 4, 1992''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14 of subpart A of this part).
The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by
reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may
obtain a copy from the ASHRAE at 1791 Tullie Circle, NE., Atlanta, GA
30329 or by electronic mail at [email protected]. You may inspect a
copy at the NARA. For information on the availability of this material
at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Compliance
with the filter efficiency standard also can be demonstrated through
data provided by the filter manufacturer. The test paint for measuring
filter efficiency would be a high solids bake enamel delivered at a
rate of at least 135 grams per minute from a conventional (non-HVLP)
air-atomized spray gun operating at 40 pounds per square inch air
pressure; the air flow rate across the filter shall be 150 feet per
minute. Affected facilities may use published filter efficiency data
provided by filter vendors to demonstrate compliance with this proposed
requirement and would not be required to perform this measurement.
Waterwash spray booths--As an alternative compliance option, spray
booths may be equipped with a water curtain that achieves at least 98
percent control of MFHAP. The waterwash or ``waterspray'' spray booths
would be required to be operated and maintained according to the
manufacturer's specifications.
Spray Painting Training Requirements. This proposed rule would
require all workers that perform spray painting at affected new and
existing facilities to be trained, with certification made available
that this training has occurred. The painters would need to be
certified as having completed classroom and hands-on
[[Page 18348]]
training in the proper selection, mixing, and application of paints, or
the equivalent. Refresher training would need to be repeated at least
once every 5 years. These requirements would not apply to operators of
robotic or automated surface painting operations. The initial and
refresher training would need to address the following topics to reduce
paint overspray, which has a direct effect on emissions reductions, as
follows:
Spray gun equipment selection, set up, and operation,
including measuring paint viscosity, selecting the proper fluid tip or
nozzle, and achieving the proper spray pattern, air pressure and
volume, and fluid delivery rate.
Spray technique for different types of paints to improve
transfer efficiency and minimize paint usage and overspray, including
maintaining the correct spray gun distance and angle to the part, using
proper banding and overlap, and reducing lead and lag spraying at the
beginning and end of each stroke.
Routine spray booth and filter maintenance, including
filter selection and installation.
For the purposes of the proposed training requirements, the
facility owner or operator may certify that their employees have
completed training during ``in-house'' training programs. Also,
facilities that can show by documentation or certification that a
painter's work experience and/or training has resulted in training
equivalent to the proposed training described above would not be
required to provide the initial training required for these painters.
Spray painters have 180 days to complete training after hiring or
transferring into a surface painting job from another job in the
facility. These proposed training requirements do not apply to the
students of an accredited surface painting training program who are
under the direct supervision of an instructor who meets the
requirements of this paragraph. The training and certification for this
proposed rule would be valid for a period not to exceed 5 years after
the date the training is completed.
Spray Gun Cleaning Requirements. This proposed rule would require
all paint spray gun cleaning operations at affected new and existing
facilities to use an atomized mist or spray such that the gun cleaning
solvent and paint residue is not created outside of the container that
collects the used gun cleaning solvent. Spray gun cleaning may be done,
for example, by hand cleaning of parts of the disassembled gun in a
container of solvent, by flushing solvent through the gun without
atomizing the solvent and paint residue, or by using a fully enclosed
spray gun washer. A combination of these non-atomizing methods above
may also be used.
9. Standards for Welding
This proposed rule would require owners or operators of affected
new and existing welding operations to minimize or reduce welding fume
by implementing the following 11 management and pollution prevention
practices to be used as practicable:
(a) Use low fume welding processes whenever possible. These welding
processes include but are not limited to: GMAW--also called MIG; GTAW--
also called TIG; PAW; SAW; and all welding processes that do not use a
consumable electrode;
(b) Use shielding gases, as appropriate to the type of welding
used;
(c) Use an inert carrier gas, such as argon, as practicable to the
type of welding used;
(d) Use low or no-HAP welding materials and substrates;
(e) Operate with a welding angle close to 90[deg];
(f) Optimize electrode diameter;
(g) Operate with lower voltage and current;
(h) Use low fume wires, as appropriate to the type of welding used;
(i) Optimize shield gas flow rate, as applicable to the type of
welding used;
(j) Use low or optimized torch speed; and
(k) Use pulsed-current power supplies, as applicable to the type of
welding used.
As a compliance alternative to the management practices for welding
processes, facilities may use control systems that reduce at least 85
percent of the welding fume, as a surrogate for MFHAP, with operation
of the capture and control devices according to the manufacturer's
instructions.
E. What are the initial compliance requirements?
To demonstrate initial compliance with this proposed rule, owners
or operators of affected new and existing sources with dry abrasive
blasting, machining, dry grinding and dry polishing with machines,
spray painting, and welding operations would certify that they have
implemented all required management and pollution prevention practices.
In addition, owners or operators of new and existing affected
sources with spray painting operations that have the potential to emit
VOHAP or MFHAP would also certify that they are in compliance with the
following requirements: Limit the VOHAP content of spray-applied
paints, use of spray booths and filters, use of approved spray delivery
and cleaning systems, and proper training of workers in spray painting
application techniques.
F. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
There are continuous requirements for all affected processes in
metal fabrication and finishing sources. There are also additional
continuous compliance requirements for specific processes or groups of
processes, as follows: Visual emissions testing for dry abrasive
blasting, machining, and dry grinding and dry polishing with machines;
tests for VOHAP content of paints in spray painting; tests for spray
painting for MFHAP control; and visual emissions testing for welding.
These requirements are discussed below in more detail.
1. Continuous Compliance Requirements for All Sources
This proposed rule would require owners or operators of all
affected new and existing sources to demonstrate continuous compliance
by adhering to the management and pollution prevention practices
specified in this proposed rule and maintaining the appropriate records
to document this compliance.
Owners or operators that comply with this proposed rule by
operating capture and control systems would be required to operate and
maintain each capture system and control device according to the
manufacturer's specifications. They also would be required to maintain
records to document conformance with this requirement, and to keep the
manufacturer's instruction manual available at the facility at all
times.
2. Visual Emissions Testing for Dry Abrasive Blasting, Machining, and
Dry Grinding and Dry Polishing With Machines, To Determine Continuous
Compliance
Visible Emissions Testing. For new and existing affected sources of
dry abrasive blasting operations (except dry abrasive blasting in
completely enclosed and unvented blast chambers), machining operations,
and dry grinding and dry polishing with machines, this proposed rule
would require visible emissions testing to demonstrate continuous
compliance with management and pollution prevention practices intended
to reduce emissions of PM, as a surrogate for MFHAP.
The affected sources would perform visual determinations of
fugitive
[[Page 18349]]
emissions, according to the graduated schedule described below, using
EPA Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for a period of 15
continuous minutes from the exhaust from either the stack to the
control device or the stack from the building where the equipment is
located, as applicable. For the purpose of this proposed rule, the
presence of visible emissions would be noted if any emissions are
observed for more than a total of 6 minutes during the 15-minute
period. In case of failure in any Method 22 test, immediate correction
action would be required to follow to reduce or eliminate the visible
emissions. The affected source would then be required to perform more
frequent visible emissions testing, as described in the graduated
schedule below.
Graduated Testing Schedule. The graduated schedule for continuous
compliance with visible emissions testing for this rule, which
progresses from daily to weekly to monthly testing, is as follows.
Affected sources would be required to be tested daily for visible
emissions with Method 22 for 10 consecutive days that the source is in
operation. If visible emissions are not observed during these 10 days,
the affected source can be tested once every 5 consecutive days
(weekly) that the source is in operation. If no visible emissions are
observed during these 4 consecutive weekly Method 22 tests, the
affected source can be tested once per consecutive 21 days (month) of
operation. If any visible emissions are observed during the weekly and
monthly testing, the affected source would resume visible emissions
testing in the more frequent schedule, i.e., weekly visible emissions
testing is increased to daily, and monthly testing is increased to
weekly.
3. Tests for VOHAP Content of Paints in Spray Painting To Determine
Continuous Compliance
For owners and operators of new and existing affected spray
painting operations, this proposed rule would allow two options for
demonstrating compliance with the limitation on the mass of VOHAP
contained in their paints: (1) Compliance via paint VOHAP content
limit, and (2) compliance via a weighted-average paint VOHAP content
limit. Both of these options are pollution prevention strategies.
Since we do not have knowledge of any facilities using other
control approaches to control VOHAP emissions, we have not included any
other on control options in this proposed rule. We are specifically
requesting comments on this part of the proposed rule if our
assumptions about the need for an additional compliance option are in
error.
Option 1: Compliance via Paint VOHAP Content Limit. In this option,
the facility determines the VOHAP content of their paints and the
volume fraction of paint solids in the paints to compare to the limit
of 3.0 pounds VOHAP per gallon paint solids (0.36 kg/liter) on an
annual (12-month) rolling average basis.
Facilities may rely on manufacturer's formulation data for
determining the VOHAP content of their paints and the volume fraction
of paint solids; tests or analysis of the materials would not be
required if formulation data are available. Alternatively, results from
the following test methods may be used.
For determining the VOHAP content of paints, Method 311 of 40 CFR
part 63, appendix A may be used. Nonaqueous volatile matter, excluding
water (i.e., VOC) may also be used as a surrogate for VOHAP, since VOC
includes all VOHAP as well as any additional organic compounds present
in the paint. To determine VOC content of the paints, facilities may
use manufacturer's formulation data or Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A. For determining the average density of volatile matter in
the paint, facilities may use American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Method D1475-98, ``Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid
Coatings, Inks, and Related Products'' (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 63.14 of subpart A of this part). The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of these
standards from ASTM at http://www.astm.org or ASTM International, 100
Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959
U.S.A. You may inspect a copy at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
For determining the volume fraction of paint solids, facilities may
use: (1) ASTM Method D2697-03, ``Standard Test Method for Volume
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings;'' or (2) ASTM Method
D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), ``Standard Test Method for Percent Volume
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas
Pycnometer'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14 of subpart A
of this part). The Director of the Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. You may obtain a copy of these standards from ASTM at http://www.astm.org or ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 U.S.A. You may inspect a copy at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
Option 2: Compliance via a Weighted-Average Paint VOHAP Content
Limit. This option would allow a demonstration of compliance based on
the VOHAP contained in the mix of paints used. This option offers
facilities the flexibility to use some individual paints that do not by
themselves meet the paint VOHAP limit, if they also use low-HAP or non-
HAP paints such that overall weighted average VOHAP content of all
paints used over a 12-month period meets the VOHAP limit. Facilities
would likely need to use this option if they use HAP-containing
thinners and/or other additives in addition to paints, since these
additives usually have high VOHAP contents. Equations are provided in
this proposed rule to demonstrate how to perform the calculations to
demonstrate compliance.
Facilities would track the mass of VOHAP in each paint and the
amount of paint used in affected sources each month of the compliance
period. This information would then be used to determine the total mass
of VOHAP in all paints along with the total volume of paint solids used
during the compliance period by adding together all the monthly values
for mass of VOHAP and the monthly values for volume of paint solids
used, for the 12 months of the initial compliance period. Facilities
may subtract from the total mass of VOHAP the amount contained in waste
materials sent to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facility regulated under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266, ``Hazardous
Waste.''
Facilities would be required to calculate their overall weighted-
average VOHAP paint content (in pound or kilogram VOHAP emitted per
gallon or liter paint solids used) and show that this rate meets the
VOHAP limit. Facilities may use readily available purchase records and
manufacturer formulation data to determine the amount of each paint
used and the VOHAP in each material.
In summary, if a facility chooses to demonstrate compliance using
Option 2, Compliance via a Weighted Average
[[Page 18350]]
Paint VOHAP Content Limit, they would be required to determine all the
parameters listed below for their paints. Either manufacturer's
formulation data or analysis of the materials by approved test methods
would be allowable options for determining these values.
Quantity of each paint, thinner and/or other additive
used, from records.
Mass of VOHAP in each paint, thinner, and other additives,
from manufacturer's data or tests.
Volume fraction of paint solids for each paint, from
manufacturer's data or tests.
Total mass of VOHAP in all materials and total volume of
paint solids used each month, by calculation.
Total mass of VOHAP emissions and total volume of paint
solids used for the initial compliance period, by calculation.
Ratio of the total mass of VOHAP emitted to the total
volume of paint solids used for the initial compliance period, by
calculation.
With this option, facilities would need to record these
calculations and results, and include them in the Notification of
Compliance Status. EPA notes that the VOHAP composition of coatings
subject to this proposed rule is ``emissions data'' under section 114
of the CAA, and EPA's regulatory definition of such term in 40 CFR part
2, because the information is necessary to determine compliance with
applicable limits. As such, this information must be available to the
public regardless of whether EPA obtains the information through a
reporting requirement or through a specific request to the regulated
entity. Therefore, such information is not eligible for treatment as
``confidential business information.''
4. Tests for Spray Painting for MFHAP Control To Determine Continuous
Compliance
Affected new and existing facilities that perform spray painting
would need to ensure and certify that: (1) All new and existing
personnel, including contract personnel, who spray-apply surface paints
with MFHAP are trained in the proper application of surface paints; (2)
all spray-applied paints with MFHAP are applied with a HVLP spray gun,
electrostatic application, airless spray gun, or equivalent; (3)
emissions of MFHAP are minimized during mixing, storage, and transfer
of paints; and (4) paint and solvent lids are kept tightly closed when
not in use.
In addition, for spray painting objects less than 15 feet in any
dimension, owners or operators of affected processes would also need to
ensure and certify that surface preparation stations or spray booths
are fitted with fiberglass or polyester fiber filters or other
comparable filter technology that can be demonstrated to achieve at
least 98 percent control efficiency of the MFHAP in the paint.
5. Visual Emissions Testing for Welding To Determine Continuous
Compliance
For new and existing affected sources with welding operations, this
proposed rule would require visible emissions testing from a vent,
stack, exit, or opening from the building containing the welding metal
fabrication and finishing operations to demonstrate continuous
compliance with management practices or add-on controls intended to
control PM emissions, as a surrogate for MFHAP. This testing has a
three-tier compliance structure.
Tier 1. The first tier for welding compliance would require visual
determinations of fugitive emissions using EPA Method 22, and allows
the same graduated testing schedule described above in section (F)(2)
for dry abrasive blasting, dry grinding and dry polishing with
machines, and machining, which includes provisions for reducing the
frequency of the Method 22 tests when no visible emissions are observed
in consecutive time periods of operation. If no visible emissions are
found, no corrective action would be required.
If visible emissions are present during any Method 22 test,
immediate corrective action would be required that includes inspection
of all fume sources and control methods in operation, and documentation
of the visual emissions test results. The graduated schedule also would
require the affected source to resume visible emissions testing in the
previous, more frequent schedule, i.e., weekly visible emissions
testing is increased to daily, and monthly testing is increased to
weekly.
Tier 2. The second tier for welding compliance would be implemented
if visible emissions are detected for the second time in any
consecutive twelve-month period. The second tier would require
corrective action and documentation of the detection of visible
emissions and the corrective action taken. Corrective action would be
required to take place immediately after the failed Method 22 test. In
addition, the second tier for welding compliance would require a
facility to perform a visual determination of emissions opacity using
EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) within 24 hours of the failed
Method 22 test. In EPA Method 9, the average of 24 15-second intervals
of opacity observation is determined, producing a total of 360 seconds
or 6 minutes of opacity observation or 6-minute average opacity.
If in the second tier tests using Method 9 the average of the 6-
minute opacities is determined to be 20 percent or less, implementation
of Method 9 testing would be required with a graduated schedule of
reduced frequency like that used for the Method 22 tests, described
above in section (F)(2), from daily to weekly to monthly for
consecutive successful tests. If opacity continues to be less than 20
percent and, pursuant to the graduated schedule the Method 9 testing
for the welding processes is able to be reduced to once a month, the
facility would have the choice of switching back to performing Method
22 tests on a monthly basis. Alternatively, the facility could choose
to continue performing monthly Method 9 tests.
If the average of the 6-minute opacities is determined to be more
than 20 percent in the Method 9 tests in the second tier, the third
tier of welding compliance requirements would be required, as described
below.
Tier 3. The third tier for welding compliance would include the
development and implementation of a Site-specific Welding Emissions
Management Plan (SWMP) within 30 days, and submittal of the SWMP to the
delegated authority. The SWMP would be required to be kept at the
facility in a readily accessed location for inspector review. Also, the
facility would be required to report any exceedence of the 20 percent
opacity annually along with their annual compliance report.
The purpose of the SWMP is to ensure that no visible emissions
occur in the future from this process, as determined by EPA Method 22
tests or less than 20 percent opacity by EPA Method 9. Application of
the SWMP may involve implementation of additional management and
pollution prevention practices, as described above under Welding
Controls, beyond those already in place at the facility or the use of
capture equipment and add-on control devices. During the development of
the SWMP, daily Method 9 tests would be required to continue to be
performed, according to the graduated schedule. The SWMP would be
required to be updated after any failures to meet 20 percent or less
opacity as determined by Method 9. If opacity continues to be less than
20 percent and Method 9 testing of the welding processes at the
facility falls to once a month, according to the graduated testing
schedule, the facility would have a choice of changing to monthly
Method 22 tests or remaining
[[Page 18351]]
with monthly Method 9, as above. The SWMP would be updated annually and
would include revisions to reflect any changes in welding operations or
controls at the facility.
The SWMP is estimated to require up to 16 hours to prepare
initially. We are proposing that the SWMP would address the following:
The type(s) of welding operation(s) currently used at the facility; the
measures used to minimize welding fume at each of type of welding
operation or each welding station; and procedures used by the facility
to ensure that these measures are being implemented. No outside
consultants or professional engineer certification is required or
necessary to prepare the SWMP.
G. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
The affected new and existing sources would be required to comply
with some requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A), which are identified in Table 3 of this proposed rule. Each
facility would be required to submit an Initial Notification and a
Notification of Compliance Status according to the requirements in 40
CFR 63.9 in the General Provisions. The affected source would be
required to prepare an annual compliance status report and keep this
report in a readily available location for inspector review. If there
are any exceedences during the year, the facility would submit this
annual compliance report with any exceedence reports prepared during
the year. The exceedence reports would describe the circumstance of the
exceedence and the corrective action taken. We specifically request
comment on this proposed requirement for annual compliance report
preparation and exceedence report submission.
Facilities also would be required to maintain all records that
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with this proposed rule,
including records of all required notifications and reports, with
supporting documentation; records showing compliance with management
and pollution prevention practices. Owners and operators would also
maintain records of the following, if applicable: Date and results of
all visual determinations of fugitive emissions, including any follow-
up tests and corrective actions taken; date and results of all visual
determinations of emissions opacity, and corrective actions taken; and
a copy of the SWMP, if it is required.
IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule
A. How did we select the source category?
The nine metal fabrication and finishing source categories were
listed as area source categories on November 22, 2002 (67 FR 70427).
The inclusion of these source categories on the area source category
list was based on data from the CAA section 112(k) inventory, which
represents 1990 urban air information. Those data indicated that metal
fabrication and finishing plants were contributors to MFHAP emissions
in urban areas.
For these source categories, we performed site visits and written
facility surveys, reviewed published literature, reviewed information
from Web sites of vendors of air pollution control devices, and held
discussions with trade organizations and industry experts. From this
research we found that the nine source categories perform the same HAP-
emitting processes, and, if the process was present, the emissions were
controlled in the same way. Consequently, we decided to issue
regulations for these nine metal fabrication and finishing area source
categories in one rulemaking action.
B. How did we select the affected sources?
We found in on our research described above in section IV(A) that
potential sources of HAP emissions from the nine metal fabrication and
finishing source categories include the following five general metal
fabrication and finishing operations: (1) Dry abrasive blasting; (2)
machining; (3) dry grinding and dry polishing with machines; (4) spray
painting; and (5) welding. We found that MFHAP are used in and have the
potential to be emitted from these operations. Therefore, we selected
the facilities with these processes in the source categories as the
affected sources for this proposed rule. Because the MFHAP may be
emitted as fugitives, we have elected to define the affected sources as
the collection of all equipment and activities necessary to perform dry
abrasive blasting, machining, dry grinding and dry polishing with
machines, spray painting, and welding.
Four of the metal fabrication and finishing source categories were
also listed for emissions of the organic HAP TCE.\4\ Chlorinated
solvents such as TCE are used as degreasers in these metal fabrication
and finishing source categories. We subsequently discovered that the
1990 emissions data for TCE was for metal fabrication and finishing
facilities that used TCE in degreasing operations, which are not part
of this source category. Rather, these emission units at both major and
area sources are subject to standards for halogenated solvent cleaning
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart T. Consequently, we are not proposing
standards for TCE from metal fabrication and finishing facilities. The
four metal fabrication and finishing source categories listed for TCE
emissions remain listed source categories pursuant to section 112(c)(3)
of this part, and this proposed rule establishes standards for
emissions of MFHAP and VOHAP. Therefore, we are clarifying that we do
not need these four source categories to meet the section 112(c)(3) 90
percent requirement regarding area source emissions of TCE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These four source categories were Electrical and Electronic
Equipment Finishing Operations; Fabricated Metal Products; Primary
Metal Products Manufacturing; and Valves and Pipe Fittings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also found that some metal fabrication and finishing facilities
also perform plating. All chromium electroplating tanks are already
subject to the Chromium Electroplating NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart
N), while other plating operations at area sources are subject to the
Plating and Polishing Area Source Rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart
WWWWWW). Therefore, these sources would not be affected sources under
this proposed rule for metal fabrication and finishing area sources.
C. How did we determine the regulated processes?
We found in our research for this proposed rule that there are five
general production operations common to the nine metal fabrication and
finishing source categories that can emit MFHAP: (1) Dry abrasive
blasting; (2) dry grinding and dry polishing with machines; (3)
machining; (4) spray painting; and (5) welding. As part of our
analyses, we considered whether there were differences in the
operations, the products fabricated or finished, or other factors
affecting emissions that would warrant different control strategies.
Under section 112(d)(1) of the CAA, EPA ``may distinguish among
classes, types, and sizes within a source category or subcategory in
establishing such standards * * *''
We observed significant differences in processes for two of the
five metal fabrication and finishing operations: Dry abrasive blasting
and painting. Considering these differences in the processes, we
identified nine distinct metal fabrication and finishing processes for
the purposes of this proposed rule. A discussion of how we
[[Page 18352]]
identified these nine processes follows below.
1. Dry Abrasive Blasting Regulated Processes
Some dry abrasive blasting operations for small parts with low-
throughput are performed in completely enclosed units commonly called
``glove boxes,'' which have no air outlet or ventilation and, hence, no
emissions when designed and operated properly. These sources are
distinctly different from larger operations which are not completely
enclosed because of the limitations of their size.
Most dry abrasive blasting of larger objects and/or large
throughput operations performed at metal fabrication and finishing area
sources is performed in enclosed spaces, which are typically equipped
with cartridge filters or other control devices on the air exhaust.
However, it is not always practical to completely enclose dry abrasive
blasting of very large objects (e.g., oil derricks) because of the size
and subsequent cost of the enclosure and also difficulty maneuvering
the object into the enclosure. The impracticality of this effort is
particularly evident when the operation is only performed
intermittently. Consequently, dry abrasive blasting of very large
objects is sometimes performed outdoors or in 2- or 3-sided buildings
that are open on one or more sides to allow the large articles to be
easily moved into the blasting zone by heavy equipment or cranes.
We found State regulations that allow outdoor dry abrasive blasting
operations for objects over 8 feet in any one dimension. We also found
through our industry surveys that these very large objects were blasted
outdoors. We also learned that facilities are motivated to enclose dry
abrasive blasting operations whenever possible because of the potential
cost savings from recovering the blast material which lowers blast
material usage and also costs, so that outside blasting is only
performed when necessary because of the size of the parts or products.
Consequently, we determined for the purposes of this proposed rule
that there were two distinct sizes of products being blasted that
affected the manner in which the process was performed: Products more
than 8 feet in any dimension, and products less than or equal to 8
feet. For products less than or equal to 8 feet, we also observed that
some of these products were blasted in completely enclosed chambers
that did not allow any air or emissions to escape. Therefore, we
developed three distinct dry abrasive blasting processes: (1) Dry
abrasive blasting of objects greater than 8 feet in any dimension; (2)
dry abrasive blasting of objects less than or equal to 8 feet in any
dimension, performed in completely enclosed and unvented blast
chambers; and (3) dry abrasive blasting of objects less than or equal
to 8 feet in any dimension, performed in vented enclosures.
2. Spray Painting Regulated Processes
Most spray painting performed at metal fabrication and finishing
area sources is performed in enclosed spray paint booths, which are
typically equipped with filters for PM control, where PM is a surrogate
for MFHAP. Because of the impracticality of enclosing large objects in
booths, similar to the discussion above for dry abrasive blasting, we
found that it is common practice in the industry for these sources to
spray paint large objects outside or in 2- or 3-sided buildings. We
found that the size of objects typically spray painted outside are
approximately 15 feet in any one dimension.
Therefore, we determined that there were two distinct sizes of
products being painted that affected the manner in which the process
was performed: (1) Products more than 15 feet in any dimension; and (2)
products equal to or less than 15 feet in any dimension. Therefore, we
developed two distinct spray painting processes for MFHAP control: (1)
Spray painting of objects less than or equal to 15 feet in any
dimension; and (2) spray painting of objects greater than 15 feet in
any dimension.
It should be noted that the object size cut-off for the spray
painting processes is more stringent than the one selected for dry
abrasive blasting in that objects between 8 and 15 feet in dimension
are enclosed for spray painting but not for blasting. This difference
occurs because the MFHAP overspray from uncontrolled spray painting is
higher, more hazardous, and more of a nuisance (i.e., more odor, clean-
up, etc.) than the inert PM and low level of MFHAP emitted from dry
abrasive blasting. Therefore, painting spray booths need to be sealed
better, whereas in dry abrasive blasting the structures can be
partially enclosed.
We also determined that there was the potential for significant
VOHAP emissions from painting that are not controlled by the PM capture
and control equipment described above. We also observed that for the
purposes of controlling VOHAP, it was not necessary to distinguish
between sizes of the objects painted. Therefore, we are proposing one
standard for control of VOHAP emissions from spray painting that would
apply to all spray painting operations. Since this standard is a
pollution prevention technique that restricts the types of coatings
used in spray painting, it does not differentiate the size of the
product being painted.
3. Other Regulated Processes
For dry grinding and dry polishing with machines; machining; and
welding we did not observe any distinct differences that would warrant
differentiating the operations into separate processes. Therefore,
these three operations are included as individual regulated processes
in this proposed rule.
4. The Nine Regulated Processes in the Metal Fabrication and Finishing
Source Categories
In the above section IV(C)(1), we discussed how we divided dry
abrasive blasting operations into three processes for the purposes of
this proposed rule. In the above section IV(C)(2), we discussed how we
divided painting operations into three processes for regulation. The
remaining three operations were not further divided, as discussed above
in section (C)(3). The result of these analyses is that we have
identified the following nine metal fabrication and finishing processes
for this proposed rule:
(1) Dry abrasive blasting objects less than or equal to 8 feet in
any dimension, performed in completely enclosed and unvented blast
chambers;
(2) Dry abrasive blasting of objects less than or equal to 8 feet
in any dimension, performed in vented enclosures;
(3) Dry abrasive blasting of objects greater than 8 feet in any
dimension;
(4) Dry grinding and dry polishing with machines;
(5) Machining;
(6) Control of VOHAP from spray painting;
(7) Control of MFHAP in spray painting of objects less than or
equal to 15 feet in any dimension;
(8) Control of MFHAP in spray painting of objects greater than 15
feet in any dimension; and
(9) Welding.
D. How was GACT determined?
We are proposing nine standards representing GACT for the metal
fabrication and finishing source categories, as provided in CAA section
112(d)(5). The information used to determine the proposed GACT is
derived from site visits and written facility surveys, published
literature, information from websites of vendors of air pollution
control devices, and
[[Page 18353]]
discussions with trade organizations and industry experts. We found
that the MFHAP emissions from the nine metal fabrication and finishing
source categories are already well controlled by the industry, where
MFHAP is controlled as PM, a surrogate for MFHAP. The facilities were
motivated to control these MFHAP emissions to improve health and safety
of the worker's environment and to save raw material use.
We evaluated the control technologies and management practices that
are current industry practice for the nine metal fabrication and
finishing area source categories. See Section II(C)(3) above, ``Metal
Fabrication and Finishing HAP Emission Controls,'' for a discussion of
the controls used in the metal fabrication and finishing source
categories. We also evaluated the control technologies used in similar
industries. We did not identify any major sources of MFHAP in these
nine source categories.
We also considered costs and economic impacts in determining GACT.
We believe the consideration of costs and economic impacts is
especially important for metal fabrication and finishing sources
because requiring additional controls would result in only marginal
reductions in emissions at very high costs for a modest incremental
improvement in MFHAP control, and because more than 90 percent of metal
fabrication and finishing facilities are small businesses.
Since we have concluded that the industry was already well-
controlled, we have developed GACT requirements to insure that these
gains in emission control from the 1990 levels are continued. We
explain below in detail our proposed GACT determinations.
1. GACT for Dry Abrasive Blasting
Dry abrasive blasting generates much PM and to a lesser degree
MFHAP from substrate material, and any dirt and paint if the substrate
was previously used. We found that it is standard industry practice to
control indoor blasting by either a total enclosure with no exhaust or
a total enclosure exhausted to PM filtration devices where PM is
controlled as a surrogate for MFHAP. Facilities in the industry have
enclosed these processes due to the significant cost savings that
results from the ability to recycle the used blast material.
We also found that it is standard industry practice to perform
blasting of large objects outdoors since they cannot fit easily inside
enclosures. Many State laws allow dry abrasive blasting outdoors for
objects over 8 feet in any one dimension. Therefore, we concluded that
this is a separate process different from the indoor blasting which was
described above.
Consequently, we developed three distinct processes for dry
abrasive blasting operations the purposes of this proposed rule, as
follows: (1) Dry abrasive blasting objects less than or equal to 8 feet
in any dimension, performed in completely enclosed and unvented blast
chambers; (2) dry abrasive blasting of objects less than or equal to 8
feet in any dimension, performed in vented enclosures; and (3) dry
abrasive blasting of objects greater than 8 feet in any dimension. The
following is a discussion of how we developed GACT for these three
processes.
a. Dry Abrasive Blasting Objects Less Than or Equal to 8 Feet in
Any Dimension, Performed in Completely Enclosed and Unvented Chambers.
We found that it is standard industry practice to use total enclosures
with no exhaust for some dry abrasive blasting operations of objects
less than or equal to 8 feet. Therefore, we are proposing that GACT for
this dry abrasive blasting process is management practices because
controls in the form of total enclosures are already a part of the
process equipment and do not allow PM, as a surrogate for MFHAP, to be
emitted during blasting. These two management practices are as follows:
(1) Minimize dust generation during emptying of the enclosure; and (2)
operate all equipment used in the blasting operation according to
manufacturer's instructions. These management practices are standard
industry practice for ``good housekeeping'' in and around dusty
processes, and are applicable when the chambers are opened for cleaning
after blasting is competed.
b. Dry Abrasive Blasting of Objects Less than or Equal to 8 Feet in
any Dimension, Performed in Vented Enclosures. We found that it is
standard industry practice to control some indoor blasting operations
of objects less than or equal to 8 feet by using an enclosure exhausted
to PM filtration devices, where PM is controlled as a surrogate for
MFHAP. Since these dry abrasive blasting operations are enclosed,
capturing and filtering the exhaust enables recycling of the blast
material, which is a cost savings to the facility and standard industry
practice. We learned from the facilities in the industry that the
indoor workplace would not be tolerable without the blasting controls
that we are proposing as GACT. Therefore, we propose that GACT for this
process is an equipment standard of enclosures and filtration that
captures and collects the PM emitted, as a surrogate for MFHAP. We are
also proposing management practices as GACT that are standard industry
practice or ``good housekeeping'' for in and around dusty processes, as
follows: (1) Keep work areas free of excess dust by regular sweeping or
vacuuming to control the accumulation of dust and other particles;
regular sweeping or vacuuming is defined to be sweeping or vacuuming
conducted once per day, once per shift, or once per operation as
needed, depending on the severity of dust generation; (2) enclose dusty
material storage areas and holding bins, seal chutes and conveyors; and
(3) operate all equipment according to manufacturer's instructions.
c. Dry Abrasive Blasting of Objects Greater Than 8 Feet in any
Dimension. We found that it is standard industry practice to perform
outdoor blasting of large objects that cannot fit easily inside an
enclosure. We also found that many State laws allow dry abrasive
blasting outdoors if performed on objects larger than 8 feet in any one
dimension. It is not standard practice in metal fabrication and
finishing facilities to enclose these processes and would be a
significant cost to the facility to do so because of the large size of
the objects, at approximately $110 million per ton of MFHAP removed.
Because of the burden an enclosure requirement would entail for
facilities that perform abrasive blasting of large objects, we propose
the GACT requirement for objects greater than 8 feet in any dimension,
where the blasting is performed outdoors, to be management practices
that minimize MFHAP emissions, as follows: (1) Do not perform blasting
outside when wind velocity is greater than 25 mph; (2) switch from high
PM-emitting blast media (e.g., sand) to low PM-emitting blast media
(e.g., steel shot, aluminum oxide), whenever practicable; (3) do not
blast substrates having coatings containing lead (>0.1 percent lead),
unless enclosures, barriers, or other PM control methods are used to
collect the lead particles; (4) do not re-use the blast media unless
contaminants (i.e., any material other than the base metal, such as
paint residue) have been removed by filtration or screening so that the
dry abrasive material conforms to its original size and makeup; (5)
keep work areas free of excess dust by regular sweeping or vacuuming to
control the accumulation of dust and other particles; regular sweeping
or vacuuming is defined to be sweeping or
[[Page 18354]]
vacuuming conducted once per day, once per shift, or once per operation
as needed, depending on the severity of dust generation; (6) enclose
dusty material storage areas and holding bins, seal chutes and
conveyors; and (7) operate all equipment according to manufacturer's
instructions.
2. GACT for Dry Grinding and Dry Polishing With Machines
We found that it is standard industry practice to capture PM
emissions, as a surrogate for MFHAP, from dry grinding and dry
polishing with machines, by the use of local exhaust, hoods, or other
vacuum devices; and to collect the PM with filtration devices, such as
cartridge filters. Facilities have reported that the indoor workplace
would not be tolerable without these types of controls on dry grinding
and dry polishing with machines.
Therefore, we propose that GACT for dry grinding and dry polishing
with machines would be the equipment standard of capture and control
with filtration devices. We also propose management practices that are
standard industry procedures and common ``good housekeeping'' practices
in and around dusty processes, as follows: (1) Keep work areas free of
excess dust by regular sweeping or vacuuming to control the
accumulation of dust and other particles; regular sweeping or vacuuming
is defined to be sweeping or vacuuming conducted once per day, once per
shift, or once per operation as needed, depending on the severity of
dust generation; and (2) operate all equipment used in dry grinding and
dry polishing with machines according to manufacturer's instructions.
3. GACT for Machining
The majority of the PM released by machining processes consists of
large particles or metal shavings that fall immediately to the floor.
Any MFHAP that is released would originate from the part or product
being machined. We found that it is general industry practice to
totally enclose the machining process and/or use lubricants or liquid
coolants that do not allow small particles to escape. Therefore, we are
proposing that GACT for machining is the following two management and
pollution prevention practices: (1) Keep work areas free of excess dust
by regular sweeping or vacuuming to control the accumulation of dust
and other particles; regular sweeping or vacuuming is defined to be
sweeping or vacuuming conducted once per day, once per shift, or once
per operation as needed, depending on the severity of dust generation;
and (2) operate all equipment used in machining operations according to
manufacturer's instructions.
4. GACT for Spray Painting To Control MFHAP
Emissions from spray painting include MFHAP from the paint
pigments. Spray painting performed indoors at metal fabrication and
finishing area sources is required by OSHA regulations to be performed
in an enclosed spray paint booth. We found that these booths are
typically equipped with filters for PM control, where PM is a surrogate
for MFHAP. Because of the impracticality of enclosing very large
objects in booths, we also found that it is common practice in the
industry to spray paint large objects outside or in 2- or 3-sided
structures. We found that the size of objects typically spray painted
outside are approximately 15 feet in any one dimension. Therefore, we
determined that there were two distinct sizes of products being painted
that affected the manner in which the process was performed: (1)
Products greater than 15 feet in any dimension, and (2) products less
than or equal to 15 feet in any dimension. Accordingly, we developed
GACT requirements for each of these two processes. The following
describes our proposed GACT and the rationale for selecting the GACT
requirements for these two processes.
a. GACT Requirements for Control of MFHAP in Spray Painting Objects
Greater Than 15 Feet in Any Dimension
The GACT requirements in this proposed rule would require owners or
operators of affected new and existing spray painting operations to
comply with one equipment standard: (1) Use of low-emitting and
pollution preventing spray gun technology. The proposed rule also would
require two management practices: (1) Spray painter training; and (2)
spray gun cleaning.
Spray Gun Technology Requirements--We are proposing that GACT for
this proposed rule would require all affected new and existing
facilities using spray-applied paints to use HVLP spray guns,
electrostatic application, or airless spray techniques. Alternatively,
an equivalent technology can be used if it is demonstrated to achieve
transfer efficiency comparable to one of the spray gun technologies
listed above for a comparable operation, and for which written approval
has been obtained from the Administrator or delegated authority.
Spray Painting Training Requirements--We are proposing that GACT
for this proposed rule would require all workers that perform spray
painting at affected new and existing facilities to be trained, with
certification made available that this training has occurred. For the
purposes of the proposed training requirements, the facility owner or
operator may certify that their employees have completed training
during ``in-house'' training programs. Also, facilities that can show
by documentation or certification that a painter's work experience and/
or training has resulted in training equivalent to the training
described above would not be required to provide the initial training
required for these painters. The training would need to address the
following topics to reduce paint overspray, which has a direct effect
on emissions reductions: Spray gun equipment selection, set up, and
operation; spray technique for different types of paints to improve
transfer efficiency and minimize paint usage and overspray; and routine
spray booth and filter maintenance, including filter selection and
installation. Spray painters have 180 days to complete training after
hiring or transferring into a surface painting job from another job in
the facility. The training and certification for this proposed rule
would be valid for a period not to exceed 5 years after the date the
training is completed.
Spray Gun Cleaning Requirements--We are proposing that GACT for
this proposed rule would require all paint spray gun cleaning
operations at affected new and existing facilities to use an atomized
mist or spray such that the gun cleaning solvent and paint residue is
not created outside of the container that collects the used gun
cleaning solvent. These gun cleaning methods include hand cleaning of
parts, use of a fully enclosed spray gun washer, or a combination of
these non-atomizing methods. Hand cleaning is considered equivalent to
gun washers as long as the painters do not atomize cleaning solvent
from the gun and the spent solvent is collected in a container that is
closed when not in use.
b. Rationale for GACT To Control MFHAP in Spray Painting Objects
Greater Than 15 Feet in Any Dimension
Some facilities paint large objects (greater than 15 feet) in open
air or 2-sided buildings so that the objects can be moved in and out
with cranes and other heavy equipment. It is not standard practice in
metal fabrication and finishing facilities to enclose these operations
in booths and would be a significant cost to the facility to do so
because of the large size of the objects, at approximately $20 million
per ton of MFHAP removed for large spray booths.
[[Page 18355]]
However, in order to minimize paint waste and exposure of the worker to
paint overspray, it is standard industry practice for facilities that
spray paint large objects to use HVLP equivalent high transfer
efficiency spray techniques even though they are not enclosing the
paint operation and filtering the exhaust air.
These HVLP spray painting technologies produce a 40 percent
decrease in paint consumption and resultant emissions compared to
conventional spray guns. Conventional high-pressure air-atomized spray
guns have a typical transfer efficiency of about 30 percent while HVLP
and other types of high-efficiency spraying use lower air pressures and
achieve a transfer efficiency of about 50 percent, or greater, with
appropriate operator training. The HVLP spray method we are proposing
as GACT is a pollution prevention technology that is standard industry
practice and reduces the amount of paint sprayed. The HVLP spray method
reduces paint costs to the facility, reduces worker exposure to paint
overspray, reduces clean-up requirements, and also reduces MFHAP
emissions.
Because of the burden an enclosure requirement would entail for
facilities that paint large objects, we propose the equipment standard
for GACT for these sources to be a requirement for HVLP spray gun use.
We chose the size requirement for indoor spray painting at 15 feet
based on industry information. We specifically request comment on our
size cut-off on affected sources of this requirement. In addition, we
are proposing management practices as GACT to ensure that workers are
trained properly in the high efficiency spray painting techniques and
that the spry equipment is washed in a way that minimizes atomization
of the paint, which can cause MFHAP emissions to occur. The HVLP
training and equipment cleaning procedures are common practice in this
industry as well as other similar industries. To minimize the impact on
small business, the facility owner or operator may perform this
training during ``in-house'' training programs. Also, facilities can
show that a painter's work experience and/or training have resulted in
equivalent training and, therefore, would not be required to provide
training at an external location for these painters.
This proposed rule would require all paint spray gun cleaning
operations at affected new and existing facilities to be performed such
that the gun cleaning solvent and paint residue is not created outside
of the container that collects the used gun cleaning solvent. These gun
cleaning methods include hand cleaning of parts, use of a fully
enclosed spray gun washer, or a combination of these non-atomizing
methods. Hand cleaning is considered equivalent to gun washers as long
as the painters do not atomize cleaning solvent from the gun and the
spent solvent is collected in a container that is closed when not in
use. Since facilities that do not currently have an automated gun
washer can still comply with the proposed standards by cleaning guns by
hand, we do not expect that sources would have any annualized capital
costs or operating costs for spray gun cleaning.
c. GACT Requirements for Control of MFHAP in Spray Painting Objects
Equal To or Less Than 15 Feet in Any Dimension
This proposed rule would require affected new and existing
facilities that are spray painting objects less than or equal to 15
feet in any dimension to comply with two equipment standards: (1) Use
of low-emitting and pollution preventing spray gun technology, and (2)
use of spray booth PM filters. This proposed rule also would require
two management practices: (1) Spray painter training, and (2) spray gun
cleaning.
Spray Booth PM Control Requirement--We are proposing that GACT for
this proposed rule would require the surface preparation stations or
spray booths of affected new and existing facilities to be fitted with
fiberglass or polyester fiber filters or other comparable filter
technology that can be demonstrated to achieve at least 98 percent
control efficiency of paint overspray (also referred to as
``arrestance''). As an alternative compliance option, spray booths may
be equipped with a water curtain that achieves at least 98 percent
control of MFHAP. The waterspray booths would be required to be
operated and maintained according to the manufacturer's specifications.
Spray Gun Technology Requirements--We are proposing that GACT for
this proposed rule would require all affected new and existing
facilities using spray-applied paints to use HVLP spray guns,
electrostatic application, or airless spray techniques. Alternatively,
an equivalent technology can be used if it is demonstrated to achieve
transfer efficiency comparable to one of the spray gun technologies
listed above for a comparable operation, and for which written approval
has been obtained from the Administrator or delegated authority.
Spray Painting Training Requirements--We are proposing that GACT
for this proposed rule would require all workers that perform spray
painting at affected new and existing facilities to be trained, with
certification made available that this training has occurred. The
training would need to address the following topics to reduce paint
overspray, which has a direct effect on emissions reductions: Spray gun
equipment selection, set up, and operation; spray technique for
different types of paints to improve transfer efficiency and minimize
paint usage and overspray; and routine spray booth and filter
maintenance, including filter selection and installation. Spray
painters have 180 days to complete training after hiring or
transferring into a surface painting job from another job in the
facility. For the purposes of the proposed training requirements, the
facility owner or operator may certify that their employees have
completed training during ``in-house'' training programs. Also,
facilities that can show by documentation or certification that a
painter's work experience and/or training has resulted in training
equivalent to the training described above would not be required to
provide the initial training required for their painters. The training
and certification for this proposed rule would be valid for a period
not to exceed 5 years after the date the training is completed.
Spray Gun Cleaning Requirements--We are proposing that GACT for
this proposed rule would require all paint spray gun cleaning
operations at affected new and existing facilities to use an atomized
mist or spray such that the gun cleaning solvent and paint residue is
not created outside of the container that collects the used gun
cleaning solvent. These gun cleaning methods include hand cleaning of
parts, use of a fully enclosed spray gun washer, or a combination of
these non-atomizing methods. Hand cleaning is considered equivalent to
gun washers as long as the painters do not atomize cleaning solvent
from the gun and the spent solvent is collected in a container that is
closed when not in use.
d. Rationale for GACT To Control MFHAP in Spray Painting Objects Equal
To or Less Than 15 Feet in Any Dimension
We are proposing that GACT for this process includes management
practices and equipment standards. Our proposed GACT for this process
includes the use of the pollution prevention spray painting
technologies such as HVLP spray guns or their equivalent. These spray
painting technologies produce a 40 percent decrease in paint
consumption and resultant emissions
[[Page 18356]]
compared to conventional spray guns. Conventional high-pressure air-
atomized spray guns have a typical transfer efficiency of about 30
percent while HVLP and other types of high-efficiency spraying use
lower air pressures and achieve a transfer efficiency of about 50
percent, or greater, with appropriate operator training.
The HVLP spray method we are proposing as GACT is a pollution
prevention technology that is standard industry practice in this
industry as well as other similar industries, and reduces the amount of
paint sprayed. The HVLP spray method reduces paint costs to the
facility, reduces worker exposure to paint overspray, reduces clean-up
requirements, and also reduces MFHAP emissions.
In addition, we are proposing management practices as GACT to
ensure that workers are trained properly in the high efficiency spray
painting techniques and that the spray equipment is washed in a way
that minimizes atomization of the paint, which can cause MFHAP
emissions to occur. The HVLP training and equipment cleaning procedures
are common practice in this industry as well as other similar
industries. To minimize the impact on small business, the facility
owner or operator may perform this training during ``in-house''
training programs. Also, facilities can show that a painter's work
experience and/or training have resulted in equivalent training and,
therefore, would not be required to provide training at an external
location for their painters.
We also propose that GACT for spray painting objects less than or
equal to 15 feet is the use of a spray booth equipped with a high
efficiency PM filter that removes MFHAP. OSHA already requires that all
indoor spray painting be performed in an enclosed booth or room, with
the exhaust vented through a filter. Therefore, upgrade of a spray
booth to include a PM filter to control MFHAP is only a small change to
the current process. The PM filters that remove MFHAP also are
available at no significant additional cost. Based on our research, we
estimate that only 20 percent of the current facilities that do spray
painting are expected to require a change in their filter type to be
able to control MFHAP and meet the proposed GACT. The costs of the
MFHAP filters as well as the costs of high efficiency spray equipment
and training are estimated to be offset by the reduced paint costs
attributed to the use of high efficiency spray equipment, for those
facilities where HVLP is not already in use. In addition, the use of
high efficiency spray paint techniques reduces the amount of time the
worker spends in painting, allowing the facility to use the worker for
other operations or training, and thereby reducing labor costs.
This proposed rule would require all paint spray gun cleaning
operations at affected new and existing facilities to be performed such
that the gun cleaning solvent and paint residue is not created outside
of the container that collects the used gun cleaning solvent. These gun
cleaning methods include hand cleaning of parts, use of a fully
enclosed spray gun washer, or a combination of these non-atomizing
methods. Hand cleaning is considered equivalent to gun washers as long
as the painters do not atomize cleaning solvent from the gun and the
spent solvent is collected in a container that is closed when not in
use. Since facilities that do not currently have an automated gun
washer can still comply with the proposed standards by cleaning guns by
hand, we do not expect that sources would have any annualized capital
costs or operating costs for spray gun cleaning.
5. GACT for Control of VOHAP Emissions From Spray Painting
We are proposing to set GACT for VOHAP emissions from spray
painting because the CAA, in Sec. 112(k)(3)(C), provides us with the
discretion to regulate these HAP in order to reduce the public health
risk posed by the release of any HAP. We found that VOHAP emissions
from painting were over 60 percent of the total HAP emissions from the
metal fabrication and finishing area source categories in the 2002 EPA
NEI and were over 30 times the MFHAP level. We also found that some
facilities currently have State permits that allow them to emit high
levels of VOHAP from their metal fabrication and finishing painting
processes, although their actual emissions have historically been at
lower levels. In this regard, we believe that in the time since data
were collected for the 2002 NEI, most facilities have begun to use low-
VOC and low-VOHAP paints that were developed as a result of a shift in
market demand due to the recent paint and coating rules for other
sources.
Therefore, we are proposing a spray painting VOHAP content limit of
3.0 pound VOHAP per gallon painting solids as GACT, based on
information received from the industry in the 2006 EPA survey and data
acquired in previously promulgated EPA rules for other similar
industries. A VOHAP limit will also ensure that any new sources will
use paints that meet the same VOHAP level as the current industry
practice. We specifically request comment on the appropriateness of
this part of GACT for metal fabrication and finishing sources.
The proposed GACT would require owners or operators of spray
painting operations from affected sources that have the potential to
emit VOHAP to use paints containing no more than 3.0 pounds VOHAP per
gallon paint solids (0.36 kg/liter) on an annual (12-month) rolling
average basis. We are proposing two methods of complying with this GACT
standard. One option would require that all paints are demonstrated as
meeting the VOHAP limit. The second option would require facilities to
meet the VOHAP limit using a 12-month rolling weighted average. In this
second option, some paints can be above the VOHAP limit as long as
their use is balanced by other paints that are below the limit, such
that the overall weighted average of all paints and their VOHAP content
is calculated to be at or below the VOHAP limit that would be required
by this proposed rule.
The proposed GACT would also require owners or operators of new and
existing spray painting operations that have the potential to emit
VOHAP to comply with the following two management and pollution
prevention practices: (1) Minimize VOHAP emissions during mixing,
storage, and transfer of paints; and (2) keep paint and solvent lids
tightly closed when not in use.
6. GACT for Welding
Welding generates a small particle size metal fume (<5 [mu]m) that
is visible to the human eye at high enough concentrations and which
contains MFHAP. Because of recent OSHA rulings to reduce the worker
exposure to hexavalent chromium, a common component of most welding
fumes, facilities may consider ventilating their welding processes
areas beyond the previous levels so that the welding exhaust goes
quickly and directly into the environment. Previous to the 2006 OSHA
rule and at a lower ventilation rate, a large portion of the welding
fumes would have collided with equipment and interior walls and would
not have been exhausted outside.
The amount of MFHAP emissions from welding is dependent on a
variety of factors including welding techniques, amount of welding
performed, and type of metal in the product being welded. In our
research we found that welding operations at any one facility vary from
day to day, and from product to product. We also found that a change
[[Page 18357]]
from one type of welding process to another is not always technically
possible for this industry as well as other similar industries. This is
demonstrated by the fact that even at an individual facility, different
types of welding and fume control strategies are in use. Thus, there is
no one single method that is generally used to reduce welding fumes in
this industry or other similar industries.
Because heat is needed to melt the welding rod and form the welded
joint during the welding process, moving and/or cooling high velocity
air in the vicinity of the weld can be detrimental to its success.
Therefore, small enclosures or vacuum systems with high exhaust rates
close to the welding cannot be used to capture welding fumes. Another
difficulty with local exhaust is the need to position and sometimes re-
position the capture equipment to be most effective during the welding
process without causing more fume to enter the breathing zone of the
worker. We studied the practices of metal fabrication and finishing
industry as well as other industries that use welding, and determined
that control devices are usually used only as a last resort when
process variables and/or products dictate a high fume-forming welding
technique.
In addition to the technical difficulty of using add-on controls
for welding fumes, the control devices are not cost-effective for
control of MFHAP and would impose a significant burden on the
facilities in the metal fabrication and finishing industry. The
estimated costs for use of add-on control equipment for welding is
greater than $7 million per ton of MFHAP. Therefore, based on the above
technical and cost issues, we are not proposing that GACT is the use of
add-on control equipment.
Most facilities have begun to use management and pollution
prevention techniques to reduce welding fumes, since these practices
are the most efficient and cost-effective way to protect their workers
and meet the OSHA standards. Because of the difficulties with using
control equipment for welding, we propose as GACT a set of management
practices that minimize fume generation for welding, as practicable to
the type of welding used or needed and the type of product being
welded. We also propose that control systems with add-on control
devices that achieve at least 85 percent control can be used as a
compliance option instead of the management practices, since these
control systems provide an equivalent control of MFHAP.
The following are the management practices we are proposing as GACT
for welding processes in the metal fabrication and finishing
industries:
(a) Use low fume welding processes whenever practicable. These
welding processes include but are not limited to: GMAW--also called
MIG; GTAW--also called TIG; PAW; SAW; and all welding processes that do
not use a consumable electrode.
(b) Use shielding gases, as practicable;
(c) Use an inert carrier gas, such as argon, as practicable to the
type of welding used;
(d) Use low or no-HAP welding materials and substrates as much as
practicable;
(e) Operate with a welding angle close to 90[deg], as practicable
to the type of welding used and physical characteristics of the
substrate;
(f) Optimize electrode diameter, as practicable;
(g) Operate with lower voltage and current, as practicable;
(h) Use low fume wires, as practicable;
(i) Optimize shield gas flow rate, as practicable;
(j) Use low or optimized torch speed, as practicable; and
(k) Use pulsed-current power supplies, as practicable.
E. How did we select the compliance requirements?
We are proposing notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements to ensure compliance with this proposed rule. We are
requiring an Initial Notification and Notification of Compliance
Status. These requirements are consistent with Section 63.9(h) of the
General Provisions of this part. For demonstrating initial compliance,
this proposed rule would require affected facilities to certify that
the required management practices have been implemented and that all
equipment associated with the processes is being properly operated and
maintained. For demonstrating continuous compliance, the proposed
requirements include annual certifications that the management
practices are being followed and all equipment associated with the
processes is being properly operated and maintained. This proposed rule
specifies recordkeeping requirements in accordance with Section 63.10
of the General Provisions. These records are needed for EPA to
determine compliance with specific rule requirements.
Because MFHAP emissions from the metal fabrication and finishing
sources are visible emissions, we are requiring visual emissions or
opacity testing performed in a graduated schedule, from daily to weekly
to monthly, to determine whether or not the process is in compliance
for five of the nine standards described above: Two of the three
process types of dry abrasive blasting (not to include dry abrasive
blasting of objects less than or equal to 8 feet in completely enclosed
chambers), machining, and dry grinding and dry polishing with machines,
and welding.
We believe that compliance with GACT using the graduated testing
schedule for visual emissions and opacity will enable facilities with a
low level of emissions to quickly reach a low frequency of testing
thereby minimizing the impact of this proposed rule on lower emitting
sources. On the other hand, facilities with higher levels of emissions
may be required to prepare a SWMP and give careful thought to the
pollution prevention management practices that can reduce emissions at
their facility. The use of visual emissions or opacity testing, as
opposed to emission testing, is a lower cost method to determine
compliance that accommodates the different levels of activity that can
occur from facility to facility, and from product to product and day to
day within the same facility, so that there is not a large cost impact
on small businesses.
Under this proposed rule, each facility would prepare an annual
compliance certification and keep it on site in a readily-accessible
location. Facilities would be required to submit this annual compliance
report only if there are any exceedences or deviations from the
equipment and management practice requirements during the year, and
would include these exceedence reports with their compliance report. We
recognize that many of these facilities are small businesses; therefore
we are requiring the submission of this annual compliance certification
only if exceedences occur during the year so that there is not an undue
economic burden on small businesses.
We are proposing a 2-year period for existing facilities to achieve
compliance. We believe the 2-year period provides sufficient time for
facilities to identify their applicability to the rule and make any
necessary changes to comply with the standards. All new area sources
would be required to comply with this proposed rule on the date of
publication of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later.
[[Page 18358]]
F. How did we decide to exempt this area source category from title V
permitting requirements?
We are proposing exemption from title V permitting requirements for
affected facilities in the metal fabrication and finishing area source
categories for the reasons described below.
Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may
exempt an area source category from title V if he determines that
compliance with title V requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or
unnecessarily burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section
502(a). In December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a
four-factor balancing test for determining whether title V is
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category, such
that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320,
December 19, 2005 (``Exemption Rule'').
The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for
determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' on a
particular area source category include: (1) Whether title V would
result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements,
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that are proposed
for an area source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V
permitting would impose significant burdens on the area source category
and whether the burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the
sources may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70
FR 75324); (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the area
source category would be justified, taking into consideration any
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR
75325); and (4) whether there are implementation and enforcement
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the
proposed NESHAP for the area source category, without relying on title
V permits (70 FR 75326).
In discussing these factors in the Exemption Rule, we further
explained that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to
which one or more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for
a given source category, and then we assessed whether considered
together those factors demonstrated that compliance with title V
requirements would be `unnecessarily burdensome' on the category,
consistent with section 502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, in
the Exemption Rule, we explained that not all of the four factors must
weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to determine that title V is
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category.
Instead, the factors are to be considered in combination, and EPA
determines whether the factors, taken together, support an exemption
from title V for a particular source category.
In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome
on an area source category, we considered, consistent with the guidance
provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether
exempting the area source category would adversely affect public
health, welfare or the environment. See 70 FR 15254-15255, March 25,
2005. We have determined that the proposed exemptions from title V
would not adversely affect public health, welfare and the environment.
Our rationale for this decision follows here.
In considering the proposed exemption from title V requirements for
sources in the category affected by this proposed rule, we first
compared the title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements (factor one) to the requirements in this proposed NESHAP
for the metal fabrication and finishing area source categories. EPA
determined that the management practices currently used by metal
fabrication and finishing facilities is GACT, and this proposed rule
would require recordkeeping, which serves as monitoring and deviation
reporting, to assure compliance with this NESHAP. The monitoring
component of the first factor favors title V exemption because this
proposed standard would provide for monitoring in the form of visible
emissions and opacity testing and recordkeeping that would assure
compliance with the requirements of this proposed rule. This proposed
NESHAP would also require the preparation of annual compliance
certification reports and submission of this report if there are any
deviations during the year, which should call attention to those
facilities in need of supervision to the State agency in the same way
as a title V permit. Records would be required to ensure that the
management practices are followed, including such records as results of
the visual emissions and opacity tests, and spray painting training of
the employees.
As part of the first factor, we have considered the extent to which
title V could potentially enhance compliance for area sources covered
by this proposed rule through recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
We have considered the various title V recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, including requirements for a 6-month monitoring report,
deviation reports, and an annual certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6.
For any affected metal fabrication and finishing facility, this
proposed NESHAP would require an initial notification and a
notification of compliance status. This proposed Metal Fabrication and
Finishing NESHAP also would require affected facilities to maintain
records showing compliance with the required equipment standard and
management practices. The information that would be required in the
notifications and records is similar to the information that would be
provided in the deviation reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and
40 CFR 71.6(a)(3). We acknowledge that title V might impose additional
compliance requirements on this category, but we have determined that
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this
proposed NESHAP for the metal fabrication and finishing source
categories would be sufficient to assure compliance with the provisions
of this NESHAP, and title V would not significantly improve those
compliance requirements.
For the second factor, we determine whether title V permitting
would impose a significant burden on the area sources in the category
and whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the
source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency.
Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and
costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. EPA estimated
that the average cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit
was $38,500 per source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See
Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit
Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR Number 1587.05. EPA does not have
specific estimates for the burdens and costs of permitting the metal
fabrication and finishing area sources; however, there are certain
activities associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. These activities
are mandatory and impose burdens on the facility. They include reading
and understanding permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining
and understanding permit application forms; answering follow-up
questions from permitting authorities after the application is
submitted; reviewing and
[[Page 18359]]
understanding the permit; collecting records; preparing and submitting
monitoring reports on a 6-month or more frequent basis; preparing and
submitting prompt deviation reports, as defined by the State, which may
include a combination of written, verbal, and other communications
methods; collecting information, preparing, and submitting the annual
compliance certification; preparing applications for permit revisions
every 5 years; and, as needed, preparing and submitting applications
for permit revisions. In addition, although not required by the permit
rules, many sources obtain the contractual services of consultants to
help them understand and meet the permitting program's requirements.
The ICR for part 70 provides additional information on the overall
burdens and costs, as well as the relative burdens of each activity.
Also, for a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70
sources (hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR
70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
In assessing the second factor for metal fabrication and finishing
facilities, we found that over 90 percent of the approximately 5,800
metal fabrication and finishing facilities affected by this proposed
rule are small businesses. These small sources lack the technical
resources that would be needed to comply with permitting requirements
and the financial resources that would be needed to hire the necessary
staff or outside consultants. As discussed above, title V permitting
would impose significant costs on these area sources, and, accordingly,
we propose that title V would be a significant burden for sources in
this category. More than 90 percent of the facilities that would be
subject to this proposed rule are small businesses with limited
resources, and under title V they would be subject to numerous
mandatory activities with which they would have difficulty complying,
whether they were issued a standard or a general permit. Furthermore,
given the number of sources in the category and the relatively small
size of many of those sources, it would likely be difficult for them to
obtain assistance from the permitting authority. Thus, we believe that
the second factor strongly supports the proposed title V exemption for
metal fabrication and finishing facilities.
The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance
likely to occur for such sources. We explained for the second factor
that the costs of compliance with title V would impose a significant
burden on nearly all of the approximately 5,800 metal fabrication and
finishing facilities affected by this proposed rule. We also believe in
considering the first factor that, while title V might impose
additional requirements, the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in the proposed NESHAP would assure compliance with the
equipment standards and management practices imposed in the NESHAP. In
addition, in our consideration of the fourth factor, we find that there
are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure
compliance with the NESHAP. Because the costs, both economic and non-
economic, of compliance with title V are so high, and the potential for
gains in compliance is low, we propose that title V permitting is not
justified for this source category. Accordingly, the third factor
supports the proposed title V exemptions for metal fabrication and
finishing area sources.
The fourth factor we considered in determining if title V is
unnecessarily burdensome is whether there are implementation and
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance
with the NESHAP without relying on title V permits. There are State
programs in place to enforce this area source NESHAP, and we believe
that the State programs will be sufficient to assure compliance with
this NESHAP. We also note that EPA retains authority to enforce this
NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. We further note
that small business assistance programs required by CAA section 507 may
be used to assist area sources that have been exempted from title V
permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct voluntary compliance
assistance, outreach, and education programs (compliance assistance
programs), which are not required by statute. These additional programs
would supplement and enhance the success of compliance with this area
source NESHAP. We believe that the statutory requirements for
implementation and enforcement of this NESHAP by the delegated States
and EPA, combined with the additional assistance programs would be
sufficient to assure compliance with this area source NESHAP without
relying on title V permitting.
In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted,
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to assure
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we do not have
similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the Exemption
rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent
in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have
adequate programs to enforce the section 112 regulations and provide
assurances that they will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate
the program. See 40 CFR part 63, General Provisions, subpart E.
In light of all the information presented here, we believe that
there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are
sufficient to assure compliance with the Metal Fabrication and
Finishing NESHAP without relying on title V permitting. Balancing the
four factors for this area source category strongly supports the
proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome. While title
V might add additional compliance requirements if imposed, we believe
that there would not be significant improvements to the compliance
requirements in the NESHAP because the requirements in this proposed
rule are specifically designed to assure compliance with the standards
and management practices imposed on this area source category.
We further maintain that the economic and non-economic costs of
compliance with title V, in conjunction with the likely difficulty this
number of small sources would have obtaining assistance from the
permitting authority, would impose a significant burden on the sources.
In addition, the high relative costs would not be justified given that
there is likely to be little or no potential gain in compliance if
title V were required. And, finally, there are adequate implementation
and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP.
Thus, we propose that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' for the metal fabrication and finishing area source
categories.
In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' EPA also considered,
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section
502(a), whether exempting the metal fabrication and finishing area
source categories from title V requirements would adversely affect
public health, welfare, or the environment. Exemption of the metal
[[Page 18360]]
fabrication and finishing area source categories from title V
requirements would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment because the level of control would remain the same if a
permit were required. The title V permit program does not impose new
substantive air quality control requirements on sources, but instead
requires that certain procedural measures be followed, particularly
with respect to determining compliance with applicable requirements. As
stated in our consideration of factor one for this category, title V
would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance
requirements applicable to existing or new area sources.
Furthermore, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting
program is to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes
complex regulations that apply to sources in order to improve
understanding of these requirements and to help sources achieve
compliance with the requirements. In this case, however, we do not
believe that a title V permit is necessary to understand the
requirements applicable to these area sources. We also have no reason
to think that new sources would be substantially different from the
existing sources. In addition, we explained in the Exemption Rule that
requiring permits for the large number of area sources could, at least
in the first few years of implementation, potentially adversely affect
public health, welfare, or the environment by shifting State agency
resources away from assuring compliance for major sources with existing
permits to issuing new permits for these area sources, potentially
reducing overall air program effectiveness. Based on this analysis, we
believe that title V exemptions for metal fabrication and finishing
area sources would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment for all of the reasons previously explained.
For the reasons stated here, we are proposing to exempt the metal
fabrication and finishing area source categories from title V
permitting requirements.
V. Impacts of the Proposed Standards
A. What are the air impacts?
Since 1990, the metal fabrication and finishing industry has
reduced their air impacts by voluntary controls that were likely
motivated by concerns for worker safety. These controls would have
reduced approximately 122 tons of the MFHAP (cadmium, chromium, lead,
manganese, and nickel) attributed to this industry in the 1990 urban
HAP inventory. Although there are no additional air emission reductions
as a result of this proposed rule, we believe that this proposed rule
will assure that the emission reductions made by the industry since
1990 will be maintained.
Along with the HAP described above, there is an undetermined amount
of VOHAP and PM that has been co-controlled in the metal fabrication
and finishing processes that contributed to criteria pollutant
emissions in 1990.
B. What are the cost impacts?
For all metal fabrication and finishing processes except painting,
all facilities are expected to be achieving the level of control
required by the proposed standard. Therefore, no additional air
pollution control devices or systems would be required. No capital
costs are associated with this proposed rule, and no operational and
maintenance costs are expected because facilities are already following
the manufacturer's instructions for operation and maintenance of
pollution control devices and systems. Many of the management practices
required by this proposed rule are pollution prevention and have the
co-benefit to provide a cost savings for facilities.
The annual cost of monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping for
this proposed rule is estimated at approximately $735 per facility per
year after the first year with an additional $385 per facility for one-
time costs in the first year. While most of these facilities are small,
the costs are expected to be approximately 0.01 percent of revenues.
The annual estimate includes 2 hours per facility per year for
preparing annual compliance reports. The annual estimate also includes
an industry-wide average of 13 hours a year per facility for visible
emissions monitoring of two buildings or sources. Although it is
possible that some facilities would initially be required by this
proposed rule to perform daily visual emissions or opacity testing, the
graduated compliance test schedule of this proposed rule allows for
decrease in frequency to once a month if visible emissions are not
found. This monitoring schedule is reflected in our estimate.
In the above estimated annual costs, we have included approximately
11,600 labor-hours among the 5,800 sources for exceedence reports and
preparation of a SWMP. This estimate assumes that 80 percent of the
facilities (4,640 facilities) will have no exceedences; 15 percent (870
facilities) will have one exceedence per year; 4 percent (232
facilities) will have two exceedences per year; and 1 percent (58
facilities) will have three exceedences per year and need to prepare an
initial SWMP. The labor hours estimated for each exceedence report is 2
hours, 16 hours are estimated for preparation of the SWMP, and 0.25
hours for recording a test result. For subsequent years, facilities
with a SWMP will only need to update their SWMP.
The above analysis shows that we expect that the maximum number of
exceedences per year for any facility would be three exceedences.
According to the monitoring requirements for welding sources, which are
the only metal fabrication and finishing sources that are not required
to use add-on control devices, the second exceedence in any one year
requires the facility to perform an EPA Method 9 opacity test to
determine whether the exhaust from the process or building is less than
or greater than 20 percent opacity. If the EPA Method 9 test shows an
opacity greater than 20 percent, the facility would be required to
prepare a SWMP to address the emission control strategy that the
facility is planning for the future to minimize PM emissions from the
process. We expect that the requirement to prepare a SWMP will cause
the facility to initiate changes in the facility's management practices
or use of add-on control equipment such that the facility will
subsequently be able to meet the opacity or visible emission
requirements in this proposed rule. Therefore, we expect no further
exceedences by the facilities after being required to prepare a SWMP.
We specifically invite comment on these assumptions for the proposed
rule.
The total number of labor hours included in this annual cost
estimate includes 2 hours for preparation of the Initial Notification
in the first year; 4 hours for preparation of the Notification of
Compliance Status in the first year, and 2 hours for preparing the
Annual Compliance Certification at the end of the year, for an
industry-wide average estimate of 24 hours per facility in the first
year, which include the 13 hours per facility for monitoring. In the
second year, the estimated industry-wide average labor hours per
facility falls to 18 hours, of which 13 hours are due to monitoring.
We estimate that the proposed standards for spray painting VOHAP
content will have no net annual cost to spray painting operations. The
cost of lower VOHAP content paints has been reduced since the market
for these paints has increased due to other paint and coating rules
promulgated by EPA. Therefore, there is no additional cost
[[Page 18361]]
estimated for lower VOHAP content paints required by this proposed
rule.
We estimate that the proposed standards for spray painting will
have no net annual cost to spray painting operations. The initial cost
of complying with these proposed standards would be off-set and
recovered over time by cost savings as a result of more efficient use
of labor and materials by surface coating operations. The initial costs
for surface coating operations may include purchase of improved spray
booth filters, automated enclosed gun washers, HVLP spray guns, and
painter training, if needed to comply with the proposed standards.
However, spray painting processes are already required by OSHA
standards to perform spray painting in a spray booth or similar
enclosure, so theses costs would not be attributed to these proposed
standards. Therefore, we have not estimated costs required to install
spray booths to comply with the proposed standards. We specifically
request comment on the appropriateness of this assumption for the metal
fabrication and finishing industries.
The proposed standards specify that certain types of filters have
to be used on the spray booth exhaust to minimize MFHAP emissions, and
these filters are not addressed by OSHA standards. Some spray painting
facilities may need to replace their current filters for ones with
higher control efficiency, but the higher efficiency filters are
readily available and will not result in any additional cost.
This proposed rule also would require all affected new and existing
facilities to perform their paint spray gun cleaning operations such
that gun cleaning solvent and paint residue is not created outside of
the container and used gun cleaning solvent is collected. These gun
cleaning methods include hand cleaning of parts, use of a fully
enclosed spray gun washer, or a combination of these non-atomizing
methods. Hand cleaning is considered equivalent to gun washers as long
as the painters do not atomize cleaning solvent from the gun and the
spent solvent is collected in a container that is closed when not in
use. Since facilities that do not currently have an automated gun
washer can still comply with the proposed standards by cleaning guns by
hand, we do not expect that sources would have any annualized capital
costs or operating costs for spray gun cleaning. We specifically
request comment on this assumption.
If spray gun washers are used, the annual costs for these washers
would be offset by the reduced labor to clean spray guns and reduced
costs for cleaning solvent purchase and disposal. Spray gun washers are
automated so that after loading the spray gun in the washer, the
painters can perform other tasks while the spray guns are being
cleaned. Automated spray gun washers are also capable of re-using
solvent for gun cleaning to minimize solvent consumption and waste
disposal.
This proposed rule also requires that facilities certify that their
painters have knowledge of the proper use of HVLP or equivalent
equipment. However, facilities can show that a painter's work
experience and/or training have resulted in equivalent training and,
therefore, would not be necessarily required to provide training at an
external location for these painters. In addition, this proposed rule
permits facilities to perform hands-on or in-house training to meet the
training requirements. Therefore, we believe that painter training
costs would have a low impact on the affected facilities. The following
discussion summarizes and further illustrates this point.
First, many facilities already send their painters to training
sponsored by paint companies and trade organizations. Paint companies
sponsor painter training so that the paint company can reduce warranty
claims on their paint products. These training courses already cover
much of the same material required by this proposed rule. Therefore,
this proposed rule would not impose new training costs on these
facilities that already participate in training. Second, facilities may
perform training ``in-house'' or show that a painter's work experience
and/or training have resulted in equivalent training and, therefore,
would not be required to provide training at an external location for
these painters. Third, the estimated training cost could be offset by
reduced coating costs if the training results in reduced coating
consumption. Data from the STAR[supreg] program indicate that painters
who complete this training can decrease the amount of coating sprayed
by about 20 percent per job. We estimate that if a typical facility
reduced their coating consumption and costs by about 4 percent per
year, the cost savings would equalize the increased cost of training
after 1 year, and there would be no net cost in training. To recover
the cost of training over 5 years, a typical facility would need to
reduce their coating consumption by slightly less than 1 percent.
Fourth, all painting in the metal fabrication and finishing industries
is not done by spraying. Many metal fabrication and finishing
facilities perform painting by dip painting or other coating techniques
that are not subject to the spray painting standards of this proposed
rule. Therefore, spray painting training impacts would be lower than
that estimated based on typical assumptions of the number of spray
painters per facility. In summary, EPA estimates that the proposed
requirements for surface coating operations would not result in any net
increase in annual or capital costs from the control requirements for
surface coating operations. We specifically request comment on this
aspect of this proposed rule.
Information on our cost impact estimates on the sources is
available in the docket for this proposed rule. (See Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2006-0306).
C. What are the economic impacts?
The only measurable costs attributable to these proposed standards
are associated with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. These proposed standards are estimated to impact a total
of 5,800 area source facilities. We estimate that over 5,300 of these
facilities are small entities. Our analysis indicates that this
proposed rule would not impose a significant adverse impact on any
facilities, large or small since these costs are approximately 0.01
percent of revenues.
D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy impacts?
No detrimental secondary impacts are expected to occur from the
non-painting sources because all facilities are currently achieving the
GACT level of control. No facilities would be required to install and
operate new or additional control devices or systems, or install and
operate monitoring devices or systems. No additional solid waste would
be generated as a result of the PM emissions collected and there are no
additional energy impacts associated with operation of control devices
or monitoring systems for the non-painting sources.
We expect no increase in generation of wastewater or other water
quality impacts. None of the control measures considered for this
proposed rule generates a wastewater stream. The installation of spray
booths and enclosed gun washers, and increased worker training in the
proper use and handling of coating materials should reduce worker
exposure to harmful chemicals in the workplace. This should have a
positive benefit on worker health, but this benefit cannot be
quantified in the scope of this rulemaking.
[[Page 18362]]
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2298.01.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this proposed rule
are based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP General Provisions (40
CFR part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting requirements
in the General Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than emissions data
submitted to EPA pursuant to the information collection requirements
for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according
to CAA section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40
CFR part 2, subpart B.
This proposed NESHAP would require metal fabrication and finishing
area sources to submit an Initial Notification and a Notification of
Compliance Status according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the
General Provisions (subpart A). Records would be required to
demonstrate compliance with operation and maintenance of capture and
control devices, VOHAP content of paints, and other management
practices. The owner or operator of a metal fabrication and finishing
facility also is subject to notification and recordkeeping requirements
in 40 CFR 63.9 and 63.10 of the General Provisions (subpart A). Annual
compliance certifications and annual exceedence reports would be
required instead of the semiannual excess emissions reports required by
the NESHAP General Provisions.
The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first three years of this ICR is estimated to be a total of 35,268
labor hours per year at a cost of $1.1 million or approximately $580
per facility. The average annual reporting burden is six hours per
response, with approximately three responses per facility for 1,933
respondents. The only costs attributable to these proposed standards
are associated with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. There are no capital, operating, maintenance, or purchase
of services costs expected as a result of this proposed rule.
Although it is possible that some facilities would initially be
required by this proposed rule to record the results of daily visual
emissions or opacity testing, the graduated compliance test schedule of
this proposed rule allows for decrease in frequency to once a month if
emissions are not found. Also, the requirement for preparation of a
SWMP is expected to result in a maximum of three exceedences from 1
percent (58) of the facilities because of the pollution prevention
focus of the SWMP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
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 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this action, which
includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0306. Submit
any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB.
See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after April 3, 2008, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by May 5, 2008.
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act 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
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small
businesses, 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.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule is estimated to impact a total of 5,800 area source metal
fabrication and finishing facilities; over 5,300 of these facilities
are estimated to be small entities. We have determined that small
entity compliance costs, as assessed by the facilities' cost-to-sales
ratio, are expected to be less than 0.01 percent. The analysis also
shows that none of the small entities would incur economic impacts
exceeding three percent of its revenue. Although this proposed rule
contains requirements for new area sources, we are not aware of any new
area sources being constructed now or planned in the next three years,
and consequently, we did not estimate any impacts for new sources.
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
standards represent practices and controls that are common throughout
the sources engaged in metal fabrication and finishing. The standards
also require minimal amount of recordkeeping and reporting needed to
demonstrate and verify compliance. These standards were developed based
on information obtained from small businesses in our surveys,
consultation with small business representatives on the State and
national level, and industry representatives that are affiliated with
small businesses.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed action on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.
[[Page 18363]]
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 by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by 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 EPA 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 EPA establishes 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 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.
EPA has determined that this proposed 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 the
private sector in any one year. This proposed rule is not expected to
impact State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, this proposed rule is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This proposed rule contains no requirements that apply to
such governments, and impose no obligations upon them. Therefore, this
proposed rule is not subject to section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (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 proposed 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. This proposed rule does not
impose any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This
proposed rule imposes no requirements on tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on
technology performance.
H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (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. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore,
the Agency conducted a search to identify potentially applicable VCS.
However, we identified no such standards, and none were brought to our
attention in comments. Therefore, EPA has decided to use EPA Methods 24
and 311 in this proposed rule. In addition, we are proposing to use
ASHRAE Method 52.1, ``Gravimetric and Dust-Spot Procedures for Testing
Air-Cleaning Devices Used in General Ventilation for Removing
Particulate Matter, June 4, 1992,'' to measure paint booth filter
efficiency and to measure the control efficiency of paint overspray
arrestors with spray-applied paintings. This method will enable owner/
operators to determine their facility's compliance with the spray booth
filter requirement of this proposed rule.
We are also proposing to use two methods from the California South
Coast Air Quality Management District: ``Spray Equipment Transfer
Efficiency Test Procedure For Equipment User, May 24, 1989,'' and
``Guidelines for Demonstrating Equivalency with District Approved
Transfer Efficient Spray Guns, September 26, 2002,'' as methods to
demonstrate the equivalency of spray gun transfer efficiency for spray
[[Page 18364]]
guns that do not meet the definition of HVLP, airless spray, or
electrostatic spray. These methods will enable owner/operators to
determine their facility's compliance with the HVLP requirement of this
proposed rule.
We also cite in this proposed rule three ASTM methods: ASTM Method
D2697-03, ``Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear
or Pigmented Coatings,'' and ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003),
``Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear
or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer,'' for determining
the volume fraction of paint solids; and ASTM D1475-98, ``Standard Test
Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products,''
for determining the average density of volatile matter in the spray
paints and coatings.
In addition to the VCS already cited in this proposed rule, EPA
Method 24 and 311 already incorporate VCS. The EPA Method 311 is a
compilation of five VCS: ASTM D1979-91, ASTM D3432-89, ASTM D4747-87,
ASTM D4827-93, and ASTM PS 9-94. The EPA Method 24 incorporates six
VCS: ASTM D1475-90, ASTM D2369-95, ASTM D3792-91, ASTM D4017-96a, ASTM
D4457-85 (Reapproved 1991), and ASTM D5403-93.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
Under Sec. 63.7(f) and Sec. 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative
test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any
required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. The nationwide standards would reduce HAP emissions
and thus decrease the amount of emissions to which all affected
populations are exposed.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporations by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 20, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(25) and
(26), (d)(7) and (8), and (l)(1); and adding new paragraph (b)(66) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(25) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.3161(f)(1),
63.3521(b)(1), 63.3941(b)(1), 63.4141(b)(1), 63.4741(b)(1),
63.4941(b)(1), 63.5160(c), and 63.11516(e)(3)(ii)(A).
(26) ASTM D1475-98, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid
Coatings, Inks, and Related Products, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
63.3151(b), 63.3941(b)(4), 63.3941(c), 63.3951(c), 63.4141(b)(3),
63.4141(c), 63.4551(c), 63.11516(e)(3)(iii), 63.11516(e)(3)(iv),
63.11516(e)(4)(iii), and 63.11516(e)(4)(iv).
* * * * *
(66) ASTM D2697-03, Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile
Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved for Sec.
63.11516(e)(3)(ii)(A).
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(7) California South Coast Air Quality Management District's
``Spray Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test Procedure for Equipment
User, May 24, 1989,'' IBR approved for Sec. 63.11173(e)(3) and Sec.
63.11516(d)(2) of subpart XXXXXX of this part.
(8) California South Coast Air Quality Management District's
``Guidelines for Demonstrating Equivalency with District Approved
Transfer Efficient Spray Guns, September 26, 2002,'' IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 63.11173(e) and 63.11516(d)(2).
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(1) American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air
Conditioning Engineers Method 52.1, ``Gravimetric and Dust-Spot
Procedures for Testing Air-Cleaning Devices Used in General Ventilation
for Removing Particulate Matter, June 4, 1992,'' IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 63.11173(e)(2)(i) and 63.11516(d)(1)(ii).
* * * * *
3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart XXXXXX consisting of
Sec. Sec. 63.11514 through 63.11523 and tables 1 through 4 to read as
follows:
Subpart XXXXXX--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Area Source Standards for 9 Metal Fabrication and Finishing
Source Categories Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec.
63.11514 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11515 What are my compliance dates?
Standards and Compliance Requirements
63.11516 What are my standards and management practices?
63.11517 What are my monitoring requirements?
63.11518 [Reserved]
63.11519 What are my notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
63.11520 [Reserved]
Other Requirements and Information
63.11521 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.11522 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11523 What General Provisions sections apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart XXXXXX
Table 1 to Subpart XXXXXX of Part 63--Description of Source
Categories Affected by This Subpart
Table 2 to Subpart XXXXXX of Part 63--Default Organic HAP Mass
Fraction for Solvents and Solvent Blends
[[Page 18365]]
Table 3 to Subpart XXXXXX of Part 63--Default Organic HAP Mass
Fraction for Petroleum Solvent Groups
Table 4 to Subpart XXXXXX of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Metal Fabrication or Finishing Area Sources
Subpart XXXXXX--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Area Source Standards for 9 Metal Fabrication and
Finishing Source Categories Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec. 63.11514 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an area
source of metal fabrication or finishing metal HAP (MFHAP), defined to
be the compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel, or
a source of volatile organic HAP (VOHAP) from spray painting
operations, which performs metal fabrication or finishing operations in
one of the following nine source categories listed in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (9) of this section. Descriptions of these source categories
are shown in Table 1 of this subpart.
(1) Electrical and Electronic Equipment Finishing Operations;
(2) Fabricated Metal Products;
(3) Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler Shops);
(4) Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing;
(5) Heating Equipment, except Electric;
(6) Industrial Machinery and Equipment: Finishing Operations;
(7) Iron and Steel Forging;
(8) Primary Metal Products Manufacturing; and
(9) Valves and Pipe Fittings.
(b) The provisions of this subpart apply to each new and existing
affected source listed and defined in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of
this section at all times.
(1) A dry abrasive blasting metal fabrication or finishing affected
source is the collection of all equipment and activities necessary to
perform dry abrasive blasting operations, which use MFHAP or perform
metal fabrication or finishing operations that have the potential to
emit MFHAP.
(2) A machining metal fabrication or finishing affected source is
the collection of all equipment and activities necessary to perform
machining metal fabrication or finishing operations which use MFHAP or
perform metal fabrication or finishing operations that have the
potential to emit MFHAP.
(3) A dry grinding and dry polishing with machines metal
fabrication or finishing affected source is the collection of all
equipment and activities necessary to perform dry grinding and dry
polishing with machines metal fabrication or finishing operations which
use MFHAP or perform metal fabrication or finishing operations that
have the potential to emit MFHAP.
(4) A spray painting metal fabrication or finishing affected source
is the collection of all equipment and activities necessary to perform
spray-applied painting operations on metal substrates using paints
which contain VOHAP or MFHAP. A spray painting metal fabrication or
finishing affected source includes all equipment used to apply cleaning
materials to a substrate to prepare it for paint application (surface
preparation) or to remove dried paint; to apply a paint to a substrate
(paint application) and to dry or cure the paint after application; or
to clean paint operation equipment (equipment cleaning). If you are
subject to the provisions of this subpart, you are not subject to the
provisions of subpart HHHHHH of this part, National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface
Coating Operations at Area Sources, for affected source(s) subject to
the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(5) A welding metal fabrication or finishing affected source is the
collection of all equipment and activities necessary to perform welding
operations which use MFHAP, or perform metal fabrication or finishing
operations that have the potential to emit MFHAP.
(c) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source, as defined in Sec. 63.2,
``General Provisions'' to part 63, before April 3, 2008.
(d) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source, as defined in Sec. 63.2,
``General Provisions'' to part 63, on or after April 3, 2008.
(e) This subpart does not apply to research or laboratory
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
(f) This subpart does not apply to tool or equipment repair
operations, or facility maintenance as defined in Sec. 63.11522,
``Definitions.''
(g) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required
by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a).
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with
the provisions of this subpart.
Sec. 63.11515 What are my compliance dates?
(a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart
within two years of the date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register, except for spray painter training required by Sec.
63.11516(d)(8), ``Standards for control of MFHAP in spray painting.''
(b) If you start up a new affected source after the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, you must achieve
compliance with the provisions in this subpart upon startup of your
affected source.
Standards and Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63. 11516 What are my standards and management practices?
(a) Dry abrasive blasting metal fabrication or finishing standards.
If you own or operate a new or existing dry abrasive blasting metal
fabrication or finishing affected source you must comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, as
applicable.
(1) Standards for dry abrasive blasting of objects less than or
equal to 8 feet in any one dimension, performed in totally enclosed and
unvented blast chambers. If you own or operate a new or existing dry
abrasive blasting metal fabrication or finishing affected source which
consists of an abrasive blasting chamber that is totally enclosed and
unvented, as defined in Sec. 63.11522, ``Definitions,'' you must
implement management practices to minimize emissions of MFHAP. These
management practices are the practices specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i)
of this section. You must demonstrate that management practices are
being implemented by complying with the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(1)(ii) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Management practices for totally enclosed and unvented abrasive
blasting chamber affected sources are to:
(A) Minimize dust generation during emptying of abrasive blasting
enclosures; and
(B) Operate all equipment associated with dry abrasive blasting
operations according to the manufacturer's instructions.
(ii) You must perform visual determinations of fugitive emissions
as specified in Sec. 63.11517(b), ``Monitoring Requirements,'' in
close proximity to the total enclosed and unvented dry abrasive
blasting chamber.
[[Page 18366]]
(iii) You must keep a record of all visual determinations of
fugitive emissions along with any corrective actions taken in
accordance with the requirements in Sec. 63.11519(c)(2),
``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.''
(iv) If visible fugitive emissions are detected, you must comply
with the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)(iv)(A) and (B) of this
section.
(A) Perform corrective actions as needed until the visible
emissions are eliminated, at which time you must perform a follow-up
inspection for visible emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.11517(a),
``Monitoring Requirements.'' Corrective actions include, but are not
limited to, inspection and repositioning of the blasting chamber,
adjusting the blasting mechanism, and repairing leaks.
(B) Report all instances when visible emissions are detected, along
with the corrective actions taken and the results of subsequent follow-
up determinations for visible emissions, along with your annual
compliance report, as required by Sec. 63.11519(b)(5), ``Notification,
recordkeeping, reporting requirements.''
(2) Standards for dry abrasive blasting of objects less than or
equal to 8 feet in any one dimension, performed in vented enclosures.
If you own or operate a new or existing dry abrasive blasting metal
fabrication or finishing affected source which consists of a dry
abrasive blasting operation which has a vent allowing any air or blast
material to escape, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(2)(i) through (v) of this section. As an alternative, dry abrasive
blasting operations for which the items to be blasted exceed 8 feet
(2.4 meters) in any dimension, may be performed outdoors, subject to
the requirements in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(i) You must capture emissions and vent them to a filtration
control device. You must demonstrate compliance with this requirement
by maintaining a record of the manufacturer's specifications for the
capture and control devices, as specified by the requirements in Sec.
63.11519(c)(4), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.'' If you control emissions with a device other than a
filtration device, you must establish that the alternate control device
is at least equivalent, according to Sec. 63.6(g) of the ``General
Provisions'' to part 63.
(ii) You must implement the management practices to minimize
emissions of MFHAP as specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) through (C)
of this section.
(A) You must keep work areas free of excess MFHAP material by
sweeping or vacuuming dust once per day, once per shift, or once per
operation, as needed depending on the severity of dust generation; and
(B) You must enclose dusty material storage areas and holding bins,
seal chutes and conveyors; and
(C) You must operate all equipment associated with dry abrasive
blasting operations according to manufacturer's instructions.
(iii) To demonstrate that management practices are being
implemented, you must perform visual determinations of fugitive
emissions as specified in Sec. 63.11517(b), ``Monitoring
Requirements,'' at the outlet of the vent or stack to which the dry
abrasive blasting operation and any control system are vented.
(iv) You must keep a record of all visual determinations of
fugitive emissions along with any corrective action taken in accordance
with the requirements in Sec. 63.11519(c)(2), ``Notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.''
(v) If visible fugitive emissions are detected, perform corrective
actions as needed until the visible fugitive emissions are eliminated,
at which time you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(2)(v)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) Perform a follow-up inspection for visible fugitive emissions
in accordance with Sec. 63.11517(a), ``Monitoring Requirements.''
Corrective actions include, but are not limited to, inspecting and
replacing filters; and inspecting, repairing, and/or correcting
enclosure and exhaust air flow, so that the enclosure air is directed
into the filtration device.
(B) Report all instances where visible emissions are detected,
along with any corrective action taken and the results of subsequent
follow-up inspections for visible emissions, along with your annual
compliance report, as required by Sec. 63.11519(b)(5), ``Notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.''
(3) Standards for dry abrasive blasting of objects greater than 8
feet in any one dimension. If you own or operate a new or existing dry
abrasive blasting metal fabrication or finishing affected source which
consists of a dry abrasive blasting operation which is performed
outdoors, you must implement management practices to minimize emissions
of MFHAP as specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section. You must
demonstrate that management practices are being implemented by
complying with the requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) through (iv)
of this section.
(i) Management practices for outdoor dry abrasive blasting metal
fabrication or finishing affected sources are the practices specified
in paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(A) through (G) of this section.
(A) Keep work areas free of excess MFHAP material by sweeping or
vacuuming dust once per day, once per shift, or once per operation, as
needed depending on the severity of dust generation; and
(B) Enclose dusty material storage areas and holding bins, seal
chutes and conveyors; and
(C) Operate all equipment associated with dry abrasive blasting
operations according to manufacturer's instructions; and
(D) No dry abrasive blasting shall be performed during a wind
event, as defined in Sec. 63.11522, ``Definitions;'' and
(E) No dry abrasive blasting shall be performed on substrates
having paints containing lead (greater than 0.1 percent lead) unless
enclosures or barriers are employed, or similar precautions are taken
to collect the lead-bearing emissions or prevent them from being
dispersed; and
(F) Dry abrasive blasting media shall not be re-used unless
contaminants (i.e., any material other than the base metal, such as
paint residue) have been removed by filtration or screening, and the
abrasive material conforms to its original size; and
(G) Whenever practicable, switch from high particulate matter (PM)-
emitting blast media (e.g., sand) to low PM-emitting blast media (e.g.,
steel shot, aluminum oxide.), where PM is a surrogate for MFHAP.
(ii) You must perform visual determinations of fugitive emissions,
as specified in Sec. 63.11517(b), ``Monitoring Requirements,'' at the
fenceline or property border nearest to the outdoor dry abrasive
blasting operation.
(iii) Keep a record of all visual determinations of fugitive
emissions along with any corrective action taken in accordance with the
requirements in Sec. 63.11519(c)(2), ``Notification, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements.''
(iv) If visible fugitive emissions are detected, perform corrective
actions until the visible fugitive emissions are eliminated, at which
time you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(iv)(A)
and (B) of this section.
(A) Perform a follow-up inspection for visible fugitive emissions
in accordance with Sec. 63.11517(a), ``Monitoring Requirements.''
(B) Report all instances where visible emissions are detected,
along with any
[[Page 18367]]
corrective action taken and the results of subsequent follow-up
inspections for visible emissions, along with your annual compliance
report as required by Sec. 63.11519(b)(5), ``Notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.''
(b) Standards for machining. If you own or operate a new or
existing machining metal fabrication or finishing affected source, you
must implement management practices to minimize emissions of MFHAP as
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. You must demonstrate
that management practices are being implemented by complying with the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) of this section.
(1) Machining affected sources must comply with the management
practices specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Keep work areas free of excess MFHAP material by sweeping or
vacuuming once per day, once per shift, or once per operation, as
needed depending on the severity of dust generation; and
(ii) Operate all equipment associated with machining according to
manufacturer's instructions.
(2) You must perform visual determinations of fugitive emissions,
as specified in Sec. 63.11517(b), ``Monitoring Requirements,'' at an
exit or opening of the building containing the machining metal
fabrication or finishing operation.
(3) You must keep a record of all visual determinations of fugitive
emissions along with any corrective action taken in accordance with the
requirements in Sec. 63.11519(c)(2), ``Notification, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements.''
(4) If visible fugitive emissions are detected, perform corrective
actions until the visible fugitive emissions are eliminated, at which
time you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and
(ii) of this section.
(i) You must perform a follow-up inspection for visible fugitive
emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.11517(a), ``Monitoring
Requirements.''
(ii) You must report all instances where visible emissions are
detected, along with any corrective action taken and the results of
subsequent follow-up inspections for visible emissions, along with your
annual compliance report as required by Sec. 63.11519(b)(5),
``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.''
(c) Standards for dry grinding and dry polishing with machines. If
you own or operate a new or existing dry grinding and dry polishing
with machines metal fabrication or finishing affected source, you must
comply with the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) You must capture emissions and vent them to a filtration
control device. You must demonstrate compliance with this requirement
by maintaining a record of the manufacturer's specifications for the
capture and control devices, as specified by the requirements in Sec.
63.11519(c)(4), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.'' If you control emissions with a device other than a
filtration device, you must establish that the alternate control device
is at least equivalent, according to Sec. 63.6(g) of the ``General
Provisions'' to part 63.
(2) You must implement management practices to minimize emissions
of MFHAP as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Keep work areas free of excess MFHAP material by sweeping or
vacuuming once per day, once per shift, or once per operation, as
needed depending on the severity of dust generation;
(ii) Operate all equipment associated with the operation of dry
grinding and dry polishing with machines, including the emission
control system, according to manufacturer's instructions.
(3) To demonstrate that the management practices are being
implemented, you must perform visual determinations of fugitive
emissions, as specified in Sec. 63.11517(b), ``Monitoring
Requirements,'' at an exit or opening of the building containing the
dry grinding and dry polishing with machines.
(4) You must keep a record of all visual determinations of fugitive
emissions along with any corrective action taken in accordance with the
requirements in Sec. 63.11519(c)(2), ``Notification, recordkeeping,
and reporting Requirements.''
(5) If visible fugitive emissions are detected, perform corrective
actions until the visible fugitive emissions are eliminated, at which
time you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and
(ii) of this section. Corrective actions include, but are not limited
to, inspecting and replacing filters; inspecting, repairing, and/or
correcting the operation of the emission capture equipment and air flow
into the capture system; and increasing the capture efficiency.
(i) You must perform a follow-up inspection for visible fugitive
emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.11517(a), ``Monitoring
Requirements.''
(ii) You must report all instances where visible emissions are
detected, along with any corrective action taken and the results of
subsequent follow-up inspections for visible emissions, along with your
annual compliance report as required by Sec. 63.11519(b)(5),
``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.''
(d) Standards for control of MFHAP in spray painting. If you own or
operate a new or existing spray painting metal fabrication or finishing
affected source, as defined in Sec. 63.11522, ``Definitions,'' you
must implement the management practices in paragraphs (d)(1) through
(9) of this section.
(1) Standards for spray painting objects less than or equal to 15
feet in any dimension for MFHAP control. All paints applied via spray-
applied painting to objects which do not exceed 15 feet (4.57 meters)
in any dimension, must be applied in a spray booth or preparation
station that meets the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) Spray booths and preparation stations must have a full roof, at
least two complete walls, and one or two complete side curtains or
other barrier material so that all four sides are covered. The spray
booths must be ventilated so that air is drawn into the booth and
leaves only through the filter. The roof may contain narrow slots for
connecting fabricated products to overhead cranes, and/or for cords or
cables.
(ii) All spray booths, preparation stations, and mobile enclosures
must be fitted with a type of filter technology that is demonstrated to
achieve at least 98 percent capture of MFHAP. The procedure used to
demonstrate filter efficiency must be consistent with the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) Method 52.1, ``Gravimetric and Dust-Spot Procedures for
Testing Air-Cleaning Devices Used in General Ventilation for Removing
Particulate Matter, June 4, 1992'' (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 63.14 of subpart A of this part). The test coating for measuring
filter efficiency shall be a high solids bake enamel delivered at a
rate of at least 135 grams per minute from a conventional (non-HVLP)
air-atomized spray gun operating at 40 pounds per square inch (psi) air
pressure; the air flow rate across the filter shall be 150 feet per
minute. Owners and operators may use published filter efficiency data
provided by filter vendors to demonstrate compliance with this
requirement and are not required to perform this measurement.
(iii) You must perform regular inspection and replacement of the
filters in all spray booths, preparation stations,
[[Page 18368]]
and mobile enclosures according to manufacturer instructions, and
maintain documentation of these activities, as detailed in Sec.
63.11519(c)(5), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.''
(iv) As an alternative compliance requirement, spray booths
equipped with a water curtain, called ``waterwash'' or ``waterspray''
booths that are operated and maintained according to the manufacturer's
specifications and that achieve at least 98 percent control of MFHAP,
may be used in lieu of the spray booths requirements of paragraphs
(d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(2) Standards for spray painting of all objects for MFHAP control.
All paints applied via spray-applied painting must be applied with a
high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray gun, electrostatic application,
airless spray gun, air-assisted airless spray gun, or an equivalent
technology that is demonstrated to achieve transfer efficiency
comparable to one of these spray gun technologies for a comparable
operation, and for which written approval has been obtained from the
Administrator. The procedure used to demonstrate that spray gun
transfer efficiency is equivalent to that of an HVLP spray gun must be
equivalent to the California South Coast Air Quality Management
District's ``Spray Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test Procedure for
Equipment User, May 24, 1989'' and ``Guidelines for Demonstrating
Equivalency with District Approved Transfer Efficient Spray Guns,
September 26, 2002'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14 of
subpart A of this part).
(3) Spray system recordkeeping. You must maintain documentation of
the HVLP or other high transfer efficiency spray paint delivery
methods, as detailed in Sec. 63.11519(c)(6), ``Notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.''
(4) Spray gun cleaning. All cleaning of paint spray guns must be
done with either non-HAP gun cleaning solvents, or in such a manner
that an atomized mist of spray of gun cleaning solvent and paint
residue is not created outside of a container that collects used gun
cleaning solvent. Spray gun cleaning may be done with, for example,
hand cleaning of parts of the disassembled gun in a container of
solvent, by flushing solvent through the gun without atomizing the
solvent and paint residue, or by using a fully enclosed spray gun
washer. A combination of these non-atomizing methods may also be used.
(5) Spray painting worker certification. All workers performing
painting must be certified that they have completed training in the
proper spray application of paints and the proper setup and maintenance
of spray equipment. The minimum requirements for training and
certification are described in paragraph (d)(6) of this section. The
spray application of paint is prohibited by persons who are not
certified as having completed the training described in paragraph
(d)(6) of this section. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply
to the students of an accredited painting training program who are
under the direct supervision of an instructor who meets the
requirements of this paragraph. The requirements of this paragraph do
not apply to operators of robotic or automated painting operations.
(6) Spray painting training program content. Each owner or operator
of an affected spray painting metal fabrication or finishing affected
source must ensure and certify that all new and existing personnel,
including contract personnel, who spray apply paints are trained in the
proper application of paints as required by paragraph (d)(5) of this
section. The training program must include, at a minimum, the items
listed in paragraphs (d)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) A list of all current personnel by name and job description who
are required to be trained;
(ii) Hands-on, or in-house or external classroom instruction that
addresses, at a minimum, initial and refresher training in the topics
listed in paragraphs (d)(6)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) Spray gun equipment selection, set up, and operation, including
measuring coating viscosity, selecting the proper fluid tip or nozzle,
and achieving the proper spray pattern, air pressure and volume, and
fluid delivery rate.
(B) Spray technique for different types of paints to improve
transfer efficiency and minimize paint usage and overspray, including
maintaining the correct spray gun distance and angle to the part, using
proper banding and overlap, and reducing lead and lag spraying at the
beginning and end of each stroke.
(C) Routine spray booth and filter maintenance, including filter
selection and installation.
(D) Environmental compliance with the requirements of this subpart.
(iii) A description of the methods to be used at the completion of
initial or refresher training to demonstrate, document, and provide
certification of successful completion of the required training.
Alternatively, owners and operators who can show by documentation or
certification that a painter's work experience and/or training has
resulted in training equivalent to the training required in paragraph
(d)(6)(ii) of this section are not required to provide the initial
training required by that paragraph to these painters.
(7) Records of spray painting training. You must maintain records
of employee training certification for use of HVLP or other high
transfer efficiency spray paint delivery methods as detailed in Sec.
63.11519(c)(7), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.''
(8) Spray painting training dates. As required by paragraph (d)(5)
of this section, all new and existing personnel at an affected spray
painting metal fabrication or finishing affected source, including
contract personnel, who spray apply paints must be trained by the dates
specified in paragraphs (d)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) If your source is a new source, all personnel must be trained
and certified no later than 180 days after hiring or no later than 180
days after April 3, 2008, whichever is later. Training that was
completed within 5 years prior to the date training is required, and
that meets the requirements specified in paragraph (d)(6)(ii) of this
section satisfies this requirement and is valid for a period not to
exceed 5 years after the date the training is completed.
(ii) If your source is an existing source, all personnel must be
trained and certified no later than 60 days after hiring or no later
than 6 months after April 3, 2008, whichever is later. Worker training
that was completed within 5 years prior to the date training is
required, and that meets the requirements specified in paragraph
(d)(6)(ii) of this section satisfies this requirement and is valid for
a period not to exceed 5 years after the date the training is
completed.
(9) Duration of training validity. Training and certification will
be valid for a period not to exceed 5 years after the date the training
is completed, and all personnel must receive refresher training that
meets the requirements of this section and be re-certified every 5
years.
(e) Standards for VOHAP from spray painting. For a new or existing
spray painting metal fabrication or finishing affected source, as
defined in Sec. 63.11522, ``Definitions,'' you must comply with the
limits specified in either paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this section.
You must demonstrate these
[[Page 18369]]
limits are being implemented by complying with the requirements in
paragraph (e)(3) or (e)(4) of this section, as applicable. You must
also implement the management practices specified in paragraph (e)(5)
of this section to minimize VOHAP emissions from mixing and storage.
(1) Paint VOHAP content limit option. Limit the VOHAP content of
all paints applied via spray applied coating operations to no more than
3 pounds of volatile organic HAP per gallon (lb/gal) (0.36 kg/l) paint
solids, in accordance with paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) You may use the VOHAP content limit option for any individual
painting operation, for any group of painting operations in the
affected source, or for all the painting operations in the affected
source.
(ii) You may not use any thinner and/or other additive that
contains VOHAP as determined according to paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this
section.
(iii) You must use the procedures in this section on each paint,
thinner and/or other additive in the condition it is in when it is
received from its manufacturer or supplier and prior to any alteration.
(iv) You do not need to determine the VOHAP content of paints,
thinners and/or other additives that are reclaimed on-site (or
reclaimed off-site if you have documentation showing that you received
back the exact same materials that were sent off-site) and reused in
the painting operation for which you use the VOHAP content limit
option, provided these materials in their condition as received were
demonstrated to comply with the VOHAP content limit option.
(2) Weighted-average paint VOHAP content limit option. Limit the
VOHAP content of the total mass of paints applied via spray-applied
coating operations to no more than 3 lb/gal (0.36 kg/l) paint solids on
a 12-month rolling weighted-average basis.
(3) Compliance with paint VOHAP content limit option. If you comply
with the VOHAP content limit in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, you
must demonstrate compliance by complying with the requirements in
paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) Determine the mass fraction of VOHAP. You must determine the
mass fraction of VOHAP for each paint, thinner and/or other additive
used during the compliance period by using one of the options in
paragraphs (e)(3)(i)(A) through (E) of this section.
(A) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material.
You may rely on information other than that generated by the test
methods specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i)(B) through (E) of this
section, such as manufacturer's formulation data or material safety
data sheets (MSDS), if it represents each VOHAP that is present at 0.1
percent by mass or more for Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)--defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4) and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds.
For example, if toluene (not an OSHA carcinogen) is 0.5 percent of the
material by mass, you do not have to count it. For reactive adhesives
in which some of the HAP react to form solids and are not emitted to
the atmosphere, you may rely on manufacturer's data that expressly
states the VOHAP or volatile matter mass fraction emitted. If there is
a disagreement between such information and results of a test conducted
according to paragraphs (e)(3)(i)(B) through (D) of this section, then
the test method results will take precedence unless, after
consultation, you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement
agency that the formulation data are correct.
(B) Method 311. You may use EPA Method 311 (appendix A to 40 CFR
part 63, ``Test Methods'') for determining the mass fraction of VOHAP.
Use the procedures specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i)(B)(1) and (2) of
this section when performing an EPA Method 311 test.
(1) Count each VOHAP that is measured to be present at 0.1 percent
by mass or more for OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4) and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds.
For example, if toluene (not an OSHA carcinogen) is measured to be 0.5
percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. Express
the mass fraction of each VOHAP you count as a value truncated to four
places after the decimal point (e.g., 0.3791).
(2) Calculate the total mass fraction of VOHAP in the test material
by adding up the individual VOHAP mass fractions and truncating the
result to three places after the decimal point (e.g., 0.763).
(C) Method 24. For paints, as defined in Sec. 63.11522,
``Definitions,'' you may use EPA Method 24 (appendix A to 40 CFR part
60, ``Test Methods'') to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous
volatile matter and use that value as a substitute for mass fraction of
VOHAP. For reactive adhesives in which some of the HAP react to form
solids and are not emitted to the atmosphere, you may use the
alternative method contained in appendix A to subpart PPPP (Plastic
Parts NESHAP) of this part, rather than EPA Method 24. You may use the
volatile fraction that is emitted, as measured by the alternative
method in appendix A to subpart PPPP (Plastic Parts NESHAP) of this
part, as a substitute for the mass fraction of VOHAP.
(D) Alternative method. You may use an alternative test method for
determining the mass fraction of VOHAP once the Administrator has
approved it. You must follow the procedure in Sec. 63.7(f) to submit
an alternative test method for approval.
(E) Solvent blends. Solvent blends may be listed as single
components for some materials in data provided by manufacturers or
suppliers. Solvent blends may contain VOHAP which must be counted
toward the total VOHAP mass fraction of the materials. When test data
and manufacturer's data for solvent blends are not available, you may
use the default values for the mass fraction of VOHAP in these solvent
blends listed in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. If you use the tables,
you must use the values in Table 2 for all solvent blends that match
Table 2 entries according to the instructions for Table 2, and you may
use Table 2 only if the solvent blends in the materials you use do not
match any of the solvent blends in Table 2 and you know only whether
the blend is aliphatic or aromatic. However, if the results of an EPA
Method 311 test indicate higher values than those listed on Table 2 or
3 to this subpart, the EPA Method 311 results will take precedence
unless, after consultation, you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct.
(ii) Determine the volume fraction of paint solids. You must
determine the volume fraction of paint solids (liters (gal) of paint
solids per liter (gal) of paint) for each paint used during the
compliance period by a test, by calculation, or by information provided
by the supplier or the manufacturer of the material, using one of the
options in paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section. If
test results obtained according to paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(A) of this
section do not agree with the information obtained under paragraph
(e)(3)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section, the test results will take
precedence unless, after consultation, you demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data are
correct.
(A) ASTM Method D2697-03 or ASTM Method D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003).
You may use ASTM Method D2697-03, ``Standard Test Method for Volume
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings'' (incorporated by
[[Page 18370]]
reference, see Sec. 63.14), or ASTM Method D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003),
``Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear
or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14), to determine the volume fraction of paint
solids for each paint. Divide the nonvolatile volume percent obtained
with the methods by 100 to calculate volume fraction of paint solids.
(B) Alternative method. You may use an alternative test method for
determining the solids content of each coating once the Administrator
has approved it. You must follow the procedure in Sec. 63.7(f) to
submit an alternative test method for approval.
(C) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material.
You may obtain the volume fraction of paint solids for each paint from
the supplier or manufacturer.
(iii) Calculation of volume fraction of paint solids. You may
determine the volume fraction of paint solids using Equation 1 of this
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP08.000
Where:
Vs = Volume fraction of paint solids, liters (gal) paint
solids per liter (gal) paint.
m = Total volatile matter content of the paint, including HAP,
volatile organic compounds (VOC), water, and exempt compounds,
determined according to EPA Method 24, grams volatile matter per
liter paint.
Davg = Average density of volatile matter in the paint,
grams volatile matter per liter volatile matter, determined from
test results using ASTM Method D1475-98, ``Standard Test Method for
Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), information from the
supplier or manufacturer of the material, or reference sources
providing density or specific gravity data for pure materials. If
there is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475-98 test results and
other information sources, the test results will take precedence
unless, after consultation you demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct.
(iv) Determine the density of each paint. Determine the density of
each paint used during the compliance period from test results using
ASTM Method D1475-98, ``Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid
Coatings, Inks, and Related Products'' (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 63.14), information from the supplier or manufacturer of the
material can be used, or specific gravity data for pure chemicals. If
there is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475-98 test results and the
supplier's or manufacturer's information, the test results will take
precedence unless, after consultation you demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data are
correct.
(v) Determine the VOHAP content of each paint. Calculate the VOHAP
content, kg (lb) of VOHAP emitted per liter (gal) paint solids used, of
each paint used during the compliance period using Equation 2 of this
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP08.001
Where:
Hc = Organic HAP content of the paint, kg organic HAP emitted per
liter (gal) paint solids used.
Dc = Density of paint, kg paint per liter (gal) paint, determined
according to paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of this section.
Wc = Mass fraction of organic HAP in the paint, kg organic HAP per
kg paint, determined according to paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this
section.
Vs = Volume fraction of paint solids, liter (gal) paint solids per
liter (gal) paint, determined according to paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of
this section.
(vi) Compliance demonstration for paint VOHAP content limit option.
To demonstrate continuous compliance, you must comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (e)(3)(vi)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) The calculated VOHAP content for each paint used must be less
than or equal to the applicable HAP content limit in paragraph (e)(1)
of this section, and each thinner and/or other additive used must
contain no VOHAP, determined according to paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this
section.
(B) You must keep all records required by Sec. 63.11519(c)(8) and
(9), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.''
(C) As part of the notification of compliance status required in
Sec. 63.11519(a)(2), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements,'' you must identify the paint operation(s) for which you
used the VOHAP content limit option and submit a statement that the
paint operation(s) was (were) in compliance with the HAP content limit
because you used no paints for which the VOHAP content exceeded the
applicable limit in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, and you used no
thinners and/or other additives that contained VOHAP, determined
according to the procedures in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (v) of this
section.
(D) If at any time the calculated VOHAP content for any paint
exceeded the applicable limit in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, or
any thinner and/or other additive used contained any VOHAP, this is an
exceedence of the limitation for that compliance period and must be
reported as specified in Sec. 63.11519(b)(8)(i), ``Notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.''
(4) Compliance with weighted-average paint VOHAP content limit
option. If you comply with the weighted-average VOHAP content in
paragraph (e)(2) of this section, you must demonstrate compliance by
complying with the requirements in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (ix) of
this section. When calculating the weighted-average VOHAP content
according to this section, do not include any paints, thinners and/or
other additives used on painting operations for which you use the HAP
content limit option of paragraph (e)(1) of this section. You do not
need to determine the mass of VOHAP in paints, thinners and/or other
additives that have been reclaimed on-site (or reclaimed off-site if
you have documentation showing that you received back the exact same
materials that were sent off-site) and reused in the painting
operation. If you use paints, thinners and/or other additives that have
been reclaimed on-site, the amount of each used in a month may be
reduced by the amount of each that is reclaimed. That is, the amount
used may be calculated as the amount consumed to account for materials
that are reclaimed.
(i) Mass fraction of VOHAP. Determine the mass fraction of VOHAP
for each paint, thinner and/or other additive used during each month
according to the requirements in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section.
(ii) Volume fraction of paint solids. Determine the volume fraction
of paint solids for each paint used during each month according to the
requirements in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section.
(iii) Density of materials. Determine the density of each liquid
paint, thinner and/or other additive used during each month from test
results using ASTM Method D1475-98, ``Standard Test Method for Density
of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14), information from the supplier or
manufacturer of the material, or reference sources providing density or
specific gravity data for pure materials. If there is disagreement
between ASTM Method D1475-98 test results and other such information
sources, the test results will take precedence unless, after
consultation you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement
agency that the formulation data are correct. If
[[Page 18371]]
you purchase materials or monitor consumption by weight instead of
volume, you do not need to determine material density. Instead, you may
use the material weight in place of the combined terms for density and
volume in Equations 3A, 3B, and 4 of this section.
(iv) Volume of materials. Determine the volume of each paint,
thinner and/or other additive used during each month by measurement or
usage records. If you purchase materials or monitor consumption by
weight instead of volume, you do not need to determine the volume of
each material used. Instead, you may use the material weight in place
of the combined terms for density and volume in Equations 3A and 3B of
this section.
(v) Mass of VOHAP. The mass of VOHAP is the combined mass of VOHAP
contained in all paints, thinners and/or other additives used during
each month minus the VOHAP in certain waste materials. Calculate the
mass of VOHAP using Equation 3 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP08.002
Where:
He = Total mass of organic HAP used during the month, kg.
A = Total mass of organic HAP in the paints used during the month,
kg, as calculated in Equation 3A of this section.
B = Total mass of organic HAP in the thinners and/or other additives
used during the month, kg, as calculated in Equation 3B of this
section.
Rw = Total mass of organic HAP in waste materials sent or designated
for shipment to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facility (TSDF) for treatment or disposal during the month, kg,
determined according to paragraph (e)(4)(vi) of this section. (You
may assign a value of zero to R w if you do not wish to use this
allowance.)
Calculate the mass VOHAP in the paints used during the month using
Equation 3A of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP08.003
Where:
A = Total mass of organic HAP in the paints used during the month,
kg.
Vol = Total volume of paint, i, used during the month, liters.
Dc= Density of paint, i, kg paint per liter paint.
Wc= Mass fraction of organic HAP in paint, i, kg organic
HAP per kg paint. For reactive adhesives as defined in Sec.
63.11522, ``Definitions,'' use the mass fraction of organic HAP that
is emitted as determined using the method in appendix A to subpart
PPPP of this part.
m = Number of different paints used during the month.
Calculate the mass of VOHAP in the thinners and/or other additives
used during the month using Equation 3B of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP08.004
Where:
B = Total mass of organic HAP in the thinners and/or other additives
used during the month, kg.
Volt, j = Total volume of thinner and/or other additive,
j, used during the month, liters.
Dt, j = Density of thinner and/or other additive, j, kg
per liter.
Wt, j = Mass fraction of organic HAP in thinner and/or
other additive, j, kg organic HAP per kg thinner and/or other
additive. For reactive adhesives as defined in Sec. 63.11522,
``Definitions,'' use the mass fraction of organic HAP that is
emitted as determined using the method in appendix A to subpart PPPP
of this part.
n = Number of different thinners and/or other additives used during
the month.
(vi) HAP in waste materials. If you choose to account for the mass
of VOHAP contained in waste materials sent or designated for shipment
to a hazardous waste TSDF in Equation 3 of this section, then you must
determine the mass according to paragraphs (e)(4)(vi)(A) through (D) of
this section.
(A) You may only include waste materials in the determination that
are generated by painting operations in the affected source for which
you use Equation 3 of this section and that will be treated or disposed
of by a facility that is regulated as a TSDF under 40 CFR part 262,
264, 265, or 266. The TSDF may be either off-site or on-site. You may
not include VOHAP contained in wastewater.
(B) You must determine either the amount of the waste materials
sent to a TSDF during the month or the amount collected and stored
during the month and designated for future transport to a TSDF. Do not
include in your determination any waste materials sent to a TSDF during
a month if you have already included them in the amount collected and
stored during that month or a previous month.
(C) Determine the total mass of VOHAP contained in the waste
materials specified in paragraph (e)(4)(vi)(A) of this section.
(D) You must document the methodology you use to determine the
amount of waste materials and the total mass of VOHAP they contain, as
required in Sec. 63.11519(c)(9)(viii), ``Notification, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements.'' If waste manifests include this
information, they may be used as part of the documentation of the
amount of waste materials and mass of VOHAP contained in them.
(vii) Paint solids. Determine the total volume of paint solids
used, in liters, which is the combined volume of paint solids for all
the paints used during each month, using Equation 4 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP08.005
Where:
Vst = Total volume of paint solids used during the month,
liters.
Volc, i = Total volume of paint, i, used during the
month, liters.
Vs, i = Volume fraction of paint solids for paint, i,
liter solids per liter paint, determined according to paragraph
(e)(3)(ii) of this section.
m = Number of paints used during the month.
(viii) Weighted-average VOHAP Content. Calculate the weighted-
average VOHAP content for all the paints used in the compliance period,
in kg (lb) VOHAP emitted per liter (gal) paint solids used, using
Equation 5 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP08.006
Where:
Hyr = Weighted-average organic HAP content of all paints
used in the compliance period, kg VOHAP per liter paint solids used.
He = Total mass of organic HAP from all materials used
during month, y, kg, as calculated by Equation 3 of this section.
Vst = Total volume of paint solids used during month, y,
liters, as calculated by Equation 4 of this section.
y = Identifier for months.
n = Number of months in the compliance period (n equals 12).
(ix) Compliance demonstration for weighted-average paint VOHAP
content limit option. To demonstrate continuous compliance, you must
comply with the requirements in paragraphs (e)(4)(ix)(A) through (F) of
this section.
(A) Calculate the weighted-average VOHAP content for each
compliance period using Equation 5 of this section. A compliance period
consists of 12 months. Each month is the end of a compliance period
consisting of that month and the preceding 11 months. You must perform
the calculations in paragraph (e)(4) of this section on a monthly basis
using data from the previous 12 months of operation.
[[Page 18372]]
(B) If the weighted-average VOHAP content of the total mass of
paints applied via spray-applied coating operations for any 12-month
compliance period exceeded the applicable VOHAP content limit in
paragraph (e)(2) of this section this is an exceedence of the VOHAP
content limitation for that compliance period and must be reported as
specified in Sec. 63.11519(b)(8)(ii), ``Notification, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements.''
(C) As part of the notification of compliance status required by
Sec. 63.11519(a)(2), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements,'' you must include a list of processes that will comply
with the weighted-average VOHAP content limit option, in accordance
with paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(D) As part of each annual compliance report required by Sec.
63.11519(b)(1), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements,'' you must include a list of the rolling 12-month monthly
calculated values of the VOHAP content calculated according to
paragraph (e)(4)(viii) of this section, for each month for which 11
previous consecutive months of data are available. Thus, for the first
annual report, no monthly VOHAP content will be reported, for the
second, monthly VOHAP content will be reported for a portion of the
year, and for subsequent reports, a full year (12 months) of monthly
VOHAP content will be reported.
(E) As part of each annual compliance report required by Sec.
63.11519(b)(1), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements,'' you must identify the painting operation(s) for which
you used the weighted-average VOHAP content limit option. If there were
no exceedences of the VOHAP content limitations, you must submit a
statement that the painting operation was in compliance with the VOHAP
content limit during the reporting period because the VOHAP content for
each compliance period was less than or equal to the applicable VOHAP
limit in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, determined according to
paragraph (e)(4) of this section.
(F) You must maintain records as specified in Sec. 63.11519(c)(8)
and (9), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.''
(5) You must implement the management practices described in
paragraphs (e)(5)(i) through (v) of this section to minimize VOHAP
emissions from mixing and storage.
(i) All VOHAP-containing paints, thinners and/or other additives,
cleaning materials, and waste materials must be stored in closed
containers.
(ii) Spills of VOHAP-containing paints, thinners and/or other
additives, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be minimized.
(iii) VOHAP-containing paints, thinners and/or other additives,
cleaning materials, and waste materials must be conveyed from one
location to another in closed containers or pipes.
(iv) Mixing vessels which contain VOHAP-containing paints and other
materials must be closed except when adding to, removing, or mixing the
contents.
(v) Emissions of VOHAP must be minimized during cleaning of
storage, mixing, and conveying equipment.
(f) Standards for welding. If you own or operate a new or existing
welding metal fabrication or finishing affected source, you must comply
with the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. You
must demonstrate that management practices or fume control measures are
being implemented by complying with the requirements in paragraphs
(f)(3) through (8) of this section.
(1) You must operate all equipment, capture, and control devices
associated with welding operations according to manufacturer's
instructions. You must demonstrate compliance with this requirement by
maintaining a record of the manufacturer's specifications for the
capture and control devices, as specified by the requirements in Sec.
63.11519(c)(4), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.''
(2) You must implement management practices, as practicable, to
minimize emissions of MFHAP as specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i)
through (xi) of this section. Alternatively, you may use a welding fume
control system that achieves at least 85 percent overall control of
MFHAP, and operate this equipment according to the manufacturer's
specifications.
(i) Use low fume welding processes whenever possible. These welding
processes include but are not limited to: Gas metal arc welding
(GMAW)--also called metal inert gas welding (MIG); gas tungsten arc
welding (GTAW)--also called tungsten inert gas (TIG); plasma arc
welding (PAW); submerged arc welding (SAW); and all welding processes
that do not use a consumable electrode.
(ii) Use shielding gases, as appropriate to the type of welding
used;
(iii) Use an inert carrier gas, such as argon, as appropriate to
the type of welding used;
(iv) Use low or no-HAP welding materials and substrates;
(v) Operate with a welding angle close to 90[deg];
(vi) Optimize electrode diameter;
(vii) Operate with lower voltage and current;
(viii) Use low fume wires, as appropriate to the type of welding
used;
(ix) Optimize shield gas flow rate, as applicable to the type of
welding used;
(x) Use low or optimized torch speed; and
(xi) Use pulsed-current power supplies, as appropriate to the type
of welding used.
(3) Tier 1 compliance requirements for welding. You must perform
visual determinations of welding fugitive emissions as specified in
Sec. 63.11517(b), ``Monitoring requirements,'' at the primary vent,
stack, exit, or opening from the building containing the welding metal
fabrication or finishing operations. You must keep a record of all
visual determinations of fugitive emissions along with any corrective
action taken in accordance with the requirements in Sec.
63.11519(c)(2), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.''
(4) Requirements upon initial detection of visible emissions from
welding. If visible fugitive emissions are detected during any visual
determination required in paragraph (f)(3) of this section, you must
comply with the requirements in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(i) Perform corrective actions that include, but are not limited
to, inspection of welding fume sources, and evaluation of the proper
operation and effectiveness of the management practices or fume control
measures implemented in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of this
section. After completing such corrective actions, you must perform a
follow-up inspection for visible fugitive emissions in accordance with
Sec. 63.11517(a), ``Monitoring Requirements,'' at the primary vent,
stack, exit, or opening from the building containing the welding metal
fabrication or finishing operations.
(ii) Report all instances where visible emissions are detected,
along with any corrective action taken and the results of subsequent
follow-up inspections for visible emissions, and submit with your
annual compliance report as required by Sec. 63.11519(b)(5),
``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.''
(5) Tier 2 requirements upon subsequent detection of visible
emissions. If visible fugitive emissions are detected more than once
during any consecutive 12-month period (notwithstanding the results of
any follow-up inspections), you must
[[Page 18373]]
comply with paragraphs (f)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Within 24 hours of the end of the visual determination of
fugitive emissions in which visible fugitive emissions were detected,
you must conduct a visual determination of emissions opacity, as
specified in Sec. 63.11517(c), ``Monitoring requirements,'' at the
primary vent, stack, exit, or opening from the building containing the
welding metal fabrication or finishing operations.
(ii) In lieu of the requirement of paragraph (f)(3) of this section
to perform visual determinations of fugitive emissions with EPA Method
22, you must perform visual determinations of emissions opacity in
accordance with Sec. 63.11517(d), ``Monitoring Requirements,'' using
EPA Method 9, at the primary vent, stack, exit, or opening from the
building containing the welding metal fabrication or finishing
operations.
(iii) You must keep a record of each visual determination of
emissions opacity performed in accordance with paragraphs (f)(5)(i) or
(ii) of this section, along with any subsequent corrective action
taken, in accordance with the requirements in Sec. 63.11519(c)(3),
``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.''
(iv) You must report the results of all visual determinations of
emissions opacity performed in accordance with paragraphs (f)(5)(i) or
(ii) of this section, along with any subsequent corrective action
taken, and submit with your annual compliance report as required by
Sec. 63.11519(b)(6), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.''
(6) Requirements for opacities less than 20 percent. For each
visual determination of emissions opacity performed in accordance with
paragraph (f)(5) of this section for which the average of the six-
minute average opacities recorded is less than 20 percent, you must
perform corrective actions, including inspection of all welding fume
sources, and evaluation of the proper operation and effectiveness of
the management practices or fume control measures implemented in
accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
(7) Tier 3 requirements for opacities exceeding 20 percent. For
each visual determination of emissions opacity performed in accordance
with paragraph (f)(5) of this section for which the average of the six-
minute average opacities recorded exceeds 20 percent, you must comply
with the requirements in paragraphs (f)(7)(i) through (v) of this
section.
(i) You must submit a report of exceedence of 20 percent opacity,
along with your annual compliance report, as specified in Sec.
63.11519(b)(8)(iii), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements,'' and according to the requirements of Sec.
63.11519(b)(1), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.''
(ii) Within 30 days of the opacity exceedence, you must prepare and
implement a Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management Plan, as
specified in paragraph (f)(8) of this section. If you have already
prepared a Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management Plan in
accordance with this paragraph, you must prepare and implement a
revised Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management Plan within 30 days.
(iii) During the preparation (or revision) of the Site-Specific
Welding Emissions Management Plan, you must continue to perform daily
visual determinations of emissions opacity as specified in Sec.
63.11517(c), ``Monitoring Requirements,'' using EPA Method 9, at the
primary vent, stack, exit, or opening from the building containing the
welding metal fabrication or finishing operations.
(iv) You must maintain records of daily visual determinations of
emissions opacity performed in accordance with paragraph (f)(7)(iii) of
this section, during preparation of the Site-Specific Welding Emissions
Management Plan, in accordance with the requirements in Sec.
63.11519(b)(9), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.''
(v) You must include these records in your annual compliance
report, according to the requirements of Sec. 63.11519(b)(1),
``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.''
(8) Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management Plan. The Site-
Specific Welding Emissions Management Plans must comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (f)(8)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management Plans must contain
the information in paragraphs (f)(8)(i)(A) through (F) of this section.
(A) Company name and address;
(B) A list and description of all welding operations which
currently comprise the welding metal fabrication or finishing affected
source;
(C) A description of all management practices and/or fume control
methods in place at the time of the opacity exceedence;
(D) A list and description of all management practices and/or fume
control methods currently employed for the welding metal fabrication or
finishing affected source;
(E) A description of additional management practices and/or fume
control methods to be implemented pursuant to paragraph (f)(7)(ii) of
this section, and the projected date of implementation; and
(F) Any revisions to a Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management
Plan must contain copies of all previous plan entries, pursuant to
paragraphs (f)(8)(i)(D) and (E) of this section.
(ii) The Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management Plan must be
updated annually to contain current information, as required by
paragraphs (f)(8)(i)(A) through (C) of this section, and submitted with
your annual compliance report, according to the requirements of Sec.
63.11519(b)(1), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.''
(iii) You must maintain a copy of the current Site-Specific Welding
Emissions Management Plan in your records in a readily-accessible
location for inspector review, in accordance with the requirements in
Sec. 63.11519(c)(11), ``Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.''
Sec. 63. 11517 What are my monitoring requirements?
(a) Visual determination of fugitive emissions, general. Visual
determination of fugitive emissions must be performed according to the
procedures of EPA Method 22, of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. You must
conduct the EPA Method 22 test while the affected source is operating
under normal conditions. The duration of each EPA Method 22 test must
be at least 15 minutes, and visible emissions will be considered to be
present if they are detected for more than six minutes of the fifteen
minute period.
(b) Visual determination of fugitive emissions, graduated schedule.
Visual determinations of fugitive emissions must be performed in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section and according to the
schedule in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Daily Method 22 Testing. Perform visual determination of
fugitive emissions once per day, on each day the process is in
operation, during operation of the process.
(2) Weekly Method 22 Testing. If no visible fugitive emissions are
detected in consecutive daily EPA Method 22 tests, performed in
accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section for 10 days of work
day operation of the process, you may decrease the frequency of EPA
Method 22 testing to
[[Page 18374]]
once per every five days of operation of the process. If visible
fugitive emissions are detected during these tests, you must resume EPA
Method 22 testing of that operation once per day during each day that
the process is in operation, in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of
this section.
(3) Monthly Method 22 Testing. If no visible fugitive emissions are
detected in four consecutive weekly EPA Method 22 tests performed in
accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, you may decrease the
frequency of EPA Method 22 testing to once per 21 days of operation of
the process. If visible fugitive emissions are detected during these
tests, you must resume weekly EPA Method 22 in accordance with
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(c) Visual determination of emissions opacity for welding Tier 2 or
3, general. Visual determination of emissions opacity must be performed
in accordance with the procedures of EPA Method 9, of appendix A of
part 60, and while the affected source is operating under normal
conditions. The duration of the EPA Method 9 test shall be thirty
minutes.
(d) Visual determination of emissions opacity for welding Tier 2 or
3, graduated schedule. You must perform visual determination of
emissions opacity in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section and
according to the schedule in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) Daily Method 9 testing for welding, Tier 2 or 3. Perform visual
determination of emissions opacity once per day during each day that
the process is in operation.
(2) Weekly Method 9 testing for welding, Tier 2 or 3. If the
average of the six minute opacities recorded during any of the daily
consecutive EPA Method 9 tests performed in accordance with paragraph
(d)(1) of this section does not exceed 20 percent for 10 days of
operation of the process, you may decrease the frequency of EPA Method
9 testing to once per five days of consecutive work day operation. If
opacity greater than 20 percent is detected during any of these tests,
you must resume testing every day of operation of the process according
to the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(3) Monthly Method 9 testing for welding Tier 2 or 3. If the
average of the six minute opacities recorded during any of the
consecutive weekly EPA Method 9 tests performed in accordance with
paragraph (d)(2) of this section does not exceed 20 percent for four
consecutive weekly tests, you may decrease the frequency of EPA Method
9 testing to once per every 21 days of operation of the process. If
visible emissions opacity greater than 20 percent is detected during
any monthly test, you must resume testing every five days of operation
of the process according to the requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of
this section.
(4) Return to Method 22 testing for welding, Tier 2 or 3. If, after
two consecutive months of testing, the average of the six minute
opacities recorded during any of the monthly EPA Method 9 tests
performed in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section does not
exceed 20 percent, you may resume monthly EPA Method 22 testing as in
paragraph (f)(2) of this section. In lieu of this, you may elect to
continue performing monthly EPA Method 9 tests in accordance with
paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
Sec. 63.11518 [Reserved]
Sec. 63.11519 What are my notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
(a) What notifications must I submit?
(1) Initial Notification. If you are the owner or operator of a
metal fabrication or finishing operation as defined in Sec. 63.11514
``Am I subject to this subpart?,'' you must submit the Initial
Notification required by Sec. 63.9(b) ``General Provisions,'' for a
new affected source no later than 120 days after initial startup or
August 1, 2008, whichever is later. For an existing affected source,
you must submit the Initial Notification no later than April 3, 2009.
Your Initial Notification must provide the information specified in
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) The name, address, phone number and e-mail address of the owner
and operator;
(ii) The address (physical location) of the affected source;
(iii) An identification of the relevant standard (i.e., this
subpart); and
(iv) A brief description of the type of operation. For example, a
brief characterization of the types of products (e.g., aerospace
components, sports equipment, etc.), the number and type of processes,
and the number of workers usually employed.
(2) Notification of compliance status. If you are the owner or
operator of an existing metal fabrication or finishing affected source,
you must submit a notification of compliance status on or before June
2, 2010. If you are the owner or operator of a new metal fabrication or
finishing affected source, you must submit a notification of compliance
status within 120 days after initial startup, or by August 1, 2008,
whichever is later. You are required to submit the information
specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section with
your notification of compliance status:
(i) Your company's name and address;
(ii) A statement by a responsible official with that official's
name, title, phone number, e-mail address and signature, certifying the
truth, accuracy, and completeness of the notification and a statement
of whether the source has complied with all the relevant standards and
other requirements of this subpart;
(iii) If you operate any spray painting affected sources, the
information required by Sec. 63.11516(e)(3)(vi)(C), ``Compliance
demonstration,'' or Sec. 63.11516(e)(4)(ix)(C), ``Compliance
demonstration,'' as applicable; and
(iv) The date of the notification of compliance status.
(b) What reports must I prepare or submit?
(1) Annual compliance reports. You must prepare annual compliance
reports for each affected source according to the requirements of
paragraphs (b)(2) through (7) of this section. The annual compliance
reporting requirements may be satisfied by reports required under other
parts of the CAA, as specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
These reports do not need to be submitted unless an exceedence of the
requirements of this subpart has occurred. In this case, the annual
compliance report must be submitted along with the exceedence reports.
(2) Dates. Unless the Administrator has approved or agreed to a
different schedule for submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a),
``General Provisions,'' you must prepare and, if applicable, submit
each annual compliance report according to the dates specified in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. Note that the
information reported for each of the months in the reporting period
will be based on the last 12 months of data prior to the date of each
monthly calculation.
(i) The first annual compliance report must cover the first annual
reporting period which begins the day after the compliance date and
ends on December 31.
(ii) Each subsequent annual compliance report must cover the
subsequent semiannual reporting period from January 1 through December
31.
(iii) Each annual compliance report must be prepared no later than
January 31 and kept in a readily-accessible location for inspector
review. If an exceedence has occurred during the year, each annual
compliance report must be submitted along with the
[[Page 18375]]
exceedence reports, and postmarked or delivered no later than January
31.
(3) Alternate dates. For each affected source that is subject to
permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71,
``Title V.''
(i) If the permitting authority has established dates for
submitting annual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40
CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), ``Title V,'' you may prepare or submit, if
required, the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the
dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to
the date specified in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section.
(ii) If an affected source prepares or submits an annual compliance
report pursuant to this section along with, or as part of, the
monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), ``Title V,'' and the compliance report includes all
required information concerning exceedences of any limitation in this
subpart, its submission will be deemed to satisfy any obligation to
report the same exceedences in the annual monitoring report. However,
submission of an annual compliance report shall not otherwise affect
any obligation the affected source may have to report deviations from
permit requirements to the permitting authority.
(4) General requirements. The annual compliance report must contain
the information specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) of this
section, and the information specified in paragraphs (b)(5) through (7)
of this section that is applicable to each affected source.
(i) Company name and address;
(ii) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report; and
(iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the
reporting period. The reporting period is the 12-month period ending on
December 31. Note that the information reported for the 12 months in
the reporting period will be based on the last 12 months of data prior
to the date of each monthly calculation.
(5) Visual determination of fugitive emissions requirements. The
annual compliance report must contain the information specified in
paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section for each affected
source which performs visual determination of fugitive emissions in
accordance with Sec. 63.11517(a), ``Monitoring requirements.''
(i) The date of every visual determination of fugitive emissions
which resulted in detection of visible emissions;
(ii) A description of the corrective actions taken subsequent to
the test; and
(iii) The date and results of the follow-up visual determination of
fugitive emissions performed after the corrective actions.
(6) Visual determination of emissions opacity requirements. The
annual compliance report must contain the information specified in
paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section for each affected
source which performs visual determination of emissions opacity in
accordance with Sec. 63.11517(c), ``Monitoring requirements.''
(i) The date of every visual determination of emissions opacity;
(ii) The average of the six-minute opacities measured by the test;
and
(iii) A description of any corrective action taken subsequent to
the test.
(7) Paint limit reports. The annual compliance report must contain
the information specified in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) through (v) of this
section for each spray painting affected source.
(i) Identification of the compliance option or options specified in
Sec. 63.11516(e), ``Spray painting VOHAP content requirements,'' that
you used on each spray painting operation during the reporting period.
If you switched between compliance options during the reporting period,
you must report the beginning and ending dates of each option you used.
(ii) If you used the weighted-average VOHAP content compliance
option in Sec. 63.11516(e)(2), ``Weighted-average VOHAP content limit
option,'' your annual compliance report must include the calculation
results for rolling 12-month weighted-average VOHAP content, according
to Sec. 63.11516(e)(4)(ix)(C), ``Compliance Demonstration.''
(iii) If there were no exceedences of the limitations in Sec.
63.11516(e)(1), ``VOHAP content limit option,'' or Sec. 63.11516(e)(2)
``Weighted-average VOHAP content limit option,'' the annual compliance
report must include a statement that there were no exceedences of the
limitations during the reporting period.
(iv) Exceedences of the VOHAP content limit option. If you used the
HAP content limit option and there was an exceedence of the applicable
VOHAP content requirement in Sec. 63.11516(e)(1), ``VOHAP content
limit option,'' an exceedence report must be prepared to contain the
information in paragraphs (b)(7)(iv)(A) through (D) of this section.
This exceedence report must be submitted along with your annual
compliance report, as required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(A) Identification of each paint used that exceeded the applicable
limit, and each thinner and/or other additive used that contained
VOHAP, and the dates and time periods each was used.
(B) The calculation of the VOHAP content (via Equation 2 of Sec.
63.11516(e)(3), ``Spray painting VOHAP content requirements'') for each
paint identified in paragraph (b)(7)(iv)(A) of this section. You do not
need to submit background data supporting this calculation (e.g.,
information provided by paint suppliers or manufacturers, or test
reports).
(C) The determination of mass fraction of VOHAP for each thinner
and/or other additive identified in paragraph (b)(7)(iv)(A) of this
section (as determined according to Sec. 63.11516(e)(3)(i), ``Spray
painting VOHAP content requirements''). You do not need to submit
background data supporting this calculation (e.g., information provided
by material suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports).
(D) A statement of the cause of each exceedence of the VOHAP
content requirement in Sec. 63.11516(e)(1), ``VOHAP content limit
option.''
(v) Exceedences of the weighted-average VOHAP content limit option.
If you used the weighted-average VOHAP content limit option and there
was an exceedence of the applicable limit in Sec. 63.11516(e)(2),
``Weighted-average VOHAP content limit option,'' an exceedence report
must be prepared to contain the information in paragraphs (b)(7)(v)(A)
through (C) of this section. This exceedence report must be submitted
along with your annual compliance report, as required by paragraph
(b)(1) of this section.
(A) The beginning and ending dates of each compliance period during
which the 12-month weighted-average VOHAP content exceeded the
applicable limit in Sec. 63.11516(e)(2), ``Weighted-average VOHAP
content limit option.''
(B) The calculations used to determine the weighted-average 12-
month VOHAP content for the compliance period in which the exceedence
of the limit in Sec. 63.11516(e)(2), ``Weighted-average VOHAP content
limit option'' occurred. You must submit the calculations for Equations
3, 3A, 3B, and 4 of Sec. 63.11516(e)(4), ``Spray painting VOHAP
content requirements,'' and if applicable, the calculation used to
determine mass of VOHAP in waste materials according to Sec.
63.11516(e)(4)(vi). You do not need to submit background data
supporting
[[Page 18376]]
these calculations (e.g., information provided by materials suppliers
or manufacturers, or test reports).
(C) A statement of the cause of each exceedence of the limit in
Sec. 63.11516(e)(2), ``Spray Painting VOHAP content requirements.''
(8) Exceedence reports. You must prepare and submit exceedence
reports according to the requirements of paragraphs (b)(8)(i) through
(iii) of this section, and submit these reports along with your annual
compliance report, as required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(i) Exceedences of spray painting VOHAP content limits. As required
by Sec. 63.11516(e)(3)(vi)(D), ``Spray painting VOHAP content
requirements,'' you must prepare an exceedence report whenever the
calculated VOHAP content for any paint used exceeded the applicable
limit, or any thinner and/or other additive used contained any VOHAP.
This report must be submitted with your annual compliance report,
according to the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and
must contain the information in paragraphs (b)(7)(iv)(A) through (D) of
this section.
(ii) Exceedences of spray painting weighted-average VOHAP content
limits. As required by Sec. 63.11516(e)(4)(ix)(B), ``Spray painting
VOHAP content requirements,'' you must prepare an exceedence report
whenever the weighted-average VOHAP content of paints used in any 12-
month compliance period exceeds the applicable limit. This report must
be submitted along with your annual compliance report, according to the
requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and must contain the
information in paragraphs (b)(7)(v)(A) through (C) of this section.
(iii) Exceedences of 20 percent opacity for welding affected
sources. As required by Sec. 63.11516(f)(7)(i), ``Requirements for
opacities exceeding 20 percent,'' you must prepare an exceedence report
whenever the average of the six-minute average opacities recorded
during a visual determination of emissions opacity exceeds 20 percent.
This report must be submitted along with your annual compliance report
according to the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and
must contain the information in paragraphs (b)(8)(iii)(A) and (B) of
this section.
(A) The date on which the exceedence occurred; and
(B) The average of the six-minute average opacities recorded during
the visual determination of emissions opacity.
(9) Site-specific Welding Emissions Management Plan reporting. You
must submit a copy of the records of daily visual determinations of
emissions recorded in accordance with Sec. 63.11516(f)(7)(iv), ``Tier
3 requirements for opacities exceeding 20 percent,'' and a copy of your
Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management Plan and any subsequent
revisions to the plan pursuant to Sec. 63.11516(f)(8), ``Site-specific
Welding Emissions Management Plan,'' along with your annual compliance
report, according to the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(c) What records must I keep? You must collect and keep records of
the data and information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (12) of
this section, according to the requirements in paragraph (c)(13) of
this section.
(1) General compliance and applicability records. Maintain
information specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (ii) of this
section for each affected source.
(i) Each notification and report that you submitted to comply with
this subpart, and the documentation supporting each notification and
report.
(ii) Records of the applicability determinations as in Sec.
63.11514(b)(1) through (5), ``Am I subject to this subpart,'' listing
equipment included in its affected source, as well as any changes to
that and on what date they occurred, for 5 years to be made available
for inspector review at any time.
(2) Visual determination of fugitive emissions records. Maintain a
record of the information specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through
(iii) of this section for each affected source which performs visual
determination of fugitive emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.11517(a), ``Monitoring requirements.''
(i) The date and results of every visual determination of fugitive
emissions;
(ii) A description of any corrective action taken subsequent to the
test; and
(iii) The date and results of any follow-up visual determination of
fugitive emissions performed after the corrective actions.
(3) Visual determination of emissions opacity records. Maintain a
record of the information specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through
(iii) of this section for each affected source which performs visual
determination of emissions opacity in accordance with Sec.
63.11517(c), ``Monitoring requirements.''
(i) The date of every visual determination of emissions opacity;
and
(ii) The average of the six-minute opacities measured by the test;
and
(iii) A description of any corrective action taken subsequent to
the test.
(4) Maintain a record of the manufacturer's specifications for the
control devices used to comply with Sec. 63.11516, ``Standards and
management practices.''
(5) Spray paint booth filter records. Maintain a record of the
demonstration of filter efficiency and regular spray paint booth filter
maintenance and performed in accordance with Sec. 63.11516(d)(1)(ii),
``Spray painting of objects less than 15 feet in all dimensions
requirements.''
(6) HVLP or other high transfer efficiency spray delivery system
documentation records. Maintain documentation of HVLP or other high
transfer efficiency spray paint delivery systems, in compliance with
Sec. 63.11516(d)(3), ``Requirements for spray painting of all
objects.'' This documentation must include the manufacturer's
specifications for the equipment and any manufacturer's operation
instructions. If you have obtained written approval for an alternative
spray application system in accordance with Sec. 63.11516(d)(2),
``Spray painting of all objects,'' you must maintain a record of that
approval along with documentation of the demonstration of equivalency.
(7) HVLP or other high transfer efficiency spray delivery system
employee training documentation records. Maintain certification that
each worker performing spray painting operations has completed the
training specified in Sec. 63.11516(d)(6), ``Requirements for spray
painting of all objects,'' with the date the initial training and the
most recent refresher training was completed.
(8) General records detailing compliance with the spray painting
VOHAP limits. Maintain a current copy of the information detailed in
paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Information provided by materials suppliers or manufacturers,
such as manufacturer's formulation data, or test data used to determine
the mass fraction of VOHAP and density for each paint, thinner and/or
other additive and the volume fraction of paint solids for each paint.
(ii) Results of testing to determine mass fraction of VOHAP,
density, or volume fraction of paint solids. You must keep a copy of
the complete test report.
(iii) If you use information provided to you by the manufacturer or
supplier of the material that was based on
[[Page 18377]]
testing, you must keep the summary sheet of results provided to you by
the manufacturer or supplier. You are not required to obtain the test
report or other supporting documentation from the manufacturer or
supplier.
(9) Periodic records detailing compliance with the VOHAP limits.
For each compliance period, you must keep the records specified in
paragraphs (c)(9)(i) through (ix) of this section.
(i) The painting operations on which you used each compliance
option and the time periods (beginning and ending dates and times) for
each option you used.
(ii) For the HAP content limit option, a record of the calculation
of the VOHAP content for each paint, using Equation 2 of Sec.
63.11516(e)(3), ``Spray Painting VOHAP content requirements.''
(iii) For the weighted-average VOHAP content limit option, you must
keep the records of the information in paragraphs (c)(9)(iii)(A)
through (C) of this section.
(A) Calculation of the total mass of VOHAP content for the paints,
thinners and/or other additives used each month using Equations 3, 3A,
and 3B of Sec. 63.11516(e)(4), ``Spray painting VOHAP content
requirements;''
(B) If applicable, the calculation used to determine mass of VOHAP
in waste materials according to Sec. 63.11516(e)(4)(vi), ``Spray
painting VOHAP content requirements;''
(C) Calculation of the total volume of paint solids used each month
using Equation 4 of Sec. 63.11516(e)(4), ``Spray painting VOHAP
content requirements,'' and
(D) Calculation of the 12-month weighted-average VOHAP content
using Equation 5 of Sec. 63.11516(e)(4), ``Spray painting VOHAP
content requirements.''
(iv) The name and volume of each paint, thinner and/or other
additive used during each compliance period. If you are using the HAP
content limit option for all paints at the source, you may maintain
purchase records for each material used rather than a record of the
volume used.
(v) The mass fraction of VOHAP for each paint, thinner and/or other
additive used during each compliance period unless the material is
tracked by weight.
(vi) The volume fraction of paint solids for each paint used during
each compliance period.
(vii) Records of the density for each paint, thinner and/or other
additive used during each compliance period.
(viii) If you use an allowance in Equation 3 of Sec.
63.11516(e)(4), ``Spray painting VOHAP content requirements,'' for
VOHAP contained in waste materials sent to or designated for shipment
to a treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) according to
Sec. 63.11516(e)(4)(vi), you must keep records of the information
specified in paragraphs (c)(9)(viii)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) The name and address of each TSDF to which you sent waste
materials for which you use an allowance in Equation 3 of Sec.
63.11516(e)(4), ``Spray painting VOHAP content requirements;'' a
statement of which subparts under 40 CFR parts 262, 264, 265, and 266,
``Hazardous Waste Management,'' apply to the facility; and the date of
each shipment.
(B) Identification of the painting operations producing waste
materials included in each shipment and the month or months in which
you used the allowance for these materials in Equation 1 of Sec.
63.11516(e)(4), ``Spray painting VOHAP content requirements.''
(C) The methodology used in accordance with Sec. 63.11516(e)(4),
``Spray painting VOHAP content requirements,'' to determine the total
amount of waste materials sent to or the amount collected, stored, and
designated for transport to a TSDF each month; and the methodology to
determine the mass of VOHAP contained in these waste materials. This
must include the sources for all data used in the determination,
methods used to generate the data, frequency of testing or monitoring,
and supporting calculations and documentation, including the waste
manifest for each shipment.
(ix) The date, time, and duration of each exceedence of the VOHAP
content limits in Sec. 63.11516(e)(1),''VOHAP content limit option,''
or Sec. 63.11516(e)(2) ``Weighted-average VOHAP content limit
option.''
(10) Visual determination of emissions opacity performed during the
preparation (or revision) of the Site-Specific Welding Emissions
Management Plan. You must maintain a record of each visual
determination of emissions opacity performed during the preparation (or
revision) of a Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management Plan, in
accordance with Sec. 63.11516(f)(7)(iii), ``Requirements for opacities
exceeding 20 percent.''
(11) Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management Plan. If you have
been required to prepare a plan in accordance with Sec.
63.11516(f)(7)(iii), ``Site-Specific Welding Emissions Management
Plan,'' you must maintain a copy of your current Site-Specific Welding
Emissions Management Plan in your records and readily available for
inspector review.
(12) Manufacturer's instructions. If you comply with this subpart
by operating any equipment according to manufacturer's instruction, you
must keep these instructions readily available for inspector review.
(13) Your records must be maintained according to the requirements
in paragraphs (c)(13)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1), ``General
Provisions.'' Where appropriate, the records may be maintained as
electronic spreadsheets or as a database.
(ii) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), ``General Provisions,'' you
must keep each record for 5 years following the date of each
occurrence, measurement, corrective action, report, or record.
(iii) You must keep each record on-site for at least 2 years after
the date of each occurrence, measurement, corrective action, report, or
record according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1), ``General Provisions.'' You may
keep the records off-site for the remaining 3 years.
Sec. 63. 11520 [Reserved]
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63. 11521 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by EPA or a
delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the
EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or
tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the EPA, has the
authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact
your EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and enforcement
of this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section
are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the
State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under
Sec. 63.6(g), of the General Provisions of this part.
(2) Approval of an alternative opacity emissions standard under
Sec. 63.6(h)(9), of the General Provisions of this part.
(3) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), of the General Provisions of this part. A
``major change to test method'' is defined in Sec. 63.90.
[[Page 18378]]
(4) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f),
of the General Provisions of this part. A ``major change to
monitoring'' under is defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f), of the General Provisions of this part. A ``major
change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.11522 What definitions apply to this subpart?
The terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA; and in this
section as follows:
Add-on control device means equipment installed on a process vent
or exhaust system that reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is
emitted to the air.
Adequate emission capture methods are hoods, enclosures, or any
other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums,
or fans designed to draw greater than 85 percent of the airborne dust
generated from the process into the control device.
Capture system means the collection of components used to capture
gases and fumes released from one or more emissions points and then
convey the captured gas stream to an add-on control device or to the
atmosphere. A capture system may include, but is not limited to, the
following components as applicable to a given capture system design:
Duct intake devices, hoods, enclosures, ductwork, dampers, manifolds,
plenums, and fans.
Cartridge collector means a type of add-on control device that uses
perforated metal cartridges containing a pleated paper or non-woven
fibrous filter media to remove PM from a gas stream by sieving and
other mechanisms. Cartridge collectors can be designed with single use
cartridges, which are removed and disposed after reaching capacity, or
continuous use cartridges, which typically are cleaned by means of a
pulse-jet mechanism.
Confined abrasive blasting enclosure means an enclosure that
includes a roof and at least two complete walls, with side curtains and
ventilation as needed to insure that no air or PM exits the enclosure
while dry abrasive blasting is performed. Apertures or slots may be
present in the roof or walls to allow for mechanized transport of the
blasted objects with overhead cranes, or cable and cord entry into the
dry abrasive blasting chamber.
Dry abrasive blasting means cleaning, polishing, conditioning,
removing or preparing a surface by propelling a stream of abrasive
material with compressed air against the surface. Hydroblasting, wet
abrasive blasting, or other abrasive blasting operations which employ
liquids to reduce emissions are not dry abrasive blasting.
Dry grinding and dry polishing with machines means grinding or
polishing without the use of lubricating oils or fluids.
Fabric filter means a type of add-on air control device used for
collecting PM by filtering a process exhaust stream through a filter or
filter media; a fabric filter is also known as a baghouse.
Facility maintenance means operations performed as part of the
routine repair or renovation of equipment, machinery, and structures
that comprise the infrastructure of the affected facility and that are
necessary for the facility to function in its intended capacity.
Facility maintenance also includes operations associated with the
installation of new equipment or structures, and any processes as part
of janitorial activities. Facility maintenance includes operations on
stationary structures or their appurtenances at the site of
installation, to portable buildings at the site of installation, to
pavements, or to curbs. Facility maintenance also includes operations
performed on mobile equipment, such as fork trucks, that are used in a
manufacturing facility and which are maintained in that same facility.
Facility maintenance does not include surface coating of motor
vehicles, mobile equipment, or items that routinely leave and return to
the facility, such as delivery trucks, rental equipment, or containers
used to transport, deliver, distribute, or dispense commercial products
to customers, such as compressed gas canisters.
Grinding means a process performed on a workpiece prior to
fabrication or finishing operations to remove undesirable material from
the surface or to remove burrs or sharp edges. Grinding is done using
belts, disks, or wheels consisting of or covered with various
abrasives.
Machining means dry metal turning, milling, drilling, boring,
tapping, planing, broaching, sawing, cutting, shaving, shearing,
threading, reaming, shaping, slotting, hobbing, and chamfering with
machines. Shearing operations cut materials into a desired shape and
size, while forming operations bend or conform materials into specific
shapes. Cutting and shearing operations include punching, piercing,
blanking, cutoff, parting, shearing and trimming. Forming operations
include bending, forming, extruding, drawing, rolling, spinning,
coining, and forging the metal. Processes specifically excluded are
hand-held devices and any process employing fluids for lubrication or
cooling.
Manufacturer's formulation data means data on a material (such as a
paint) that are supplied by the material manufacturer based on
knowledge of the ingredients used to manufacture that material, rather
than based on testing of the material with the test methods specified
in Sec. 63.11516(e), ``Spray Painting VOHAP content requirements.''
Manufacturer's formulation data may include, but are not limited to,
information on density, VOHAP content, volatile organic matter content,
and paint solids content.
Mass fraction of VOHAP means the ratio of the mass of volatile
organic HAP (VOHAP) to the mass of a material in which it is contained,
expressed as kg of organic HAP per kg of material.
Metal fabrication and finishing HAP (MFHAP) means cadmium,
chromium, lead, manganese, or nickel.
Metal fabrication and finishing source categories are limited to
operations described in Table 1 to this subpart.
Metal fabrication or finishing operations means dry abrasive
blasting, machining, spray painting, or welding in any one of the nine
metal fabrication and finishing source categories listed in Table 1 to
this subpart.
Organic HAP content means the mass of volatile organic HAP (VOHAP)
emitted per volume of paint solids used for a paint calculated using
Equation 2 of Sec. 63.11516(e), ``Spray Painting VOHAP content
requirements.'' The VOHAP content is determined for the paint in the
condition it is in when received from its manufacturer or supplier and
does not account for any alteration after receipt.
Paint means a material applied to a substrate for decorative,
protective, or functional purposes. Such materials include, but are not
limited to, paints, coatings, sealants, liquid plastic coatings,
caulks, inks, adhesives, and maskants. Decorative, protective, or
functional materials that consist only of protective oils for metal,
acids, bases, or any combination of these substances, or paper film or
plastic film which may be pre-coated with an adhesive by the film
manufacturer, are not considered paints for the purposes of this
subpart.
Paint solids means the nonvolatile portion of the paint that makes
up the dry film.
Polishing means an operation which removes fine excess metal from a
surface to prepare the surface for more refined finishing procedures
prior to plating or other processes. Polishing
[[Page 18379]]
may also be employed to remove burrs on castings or stampings.
Polishing is performed using hard-faced wheels constructed of muslin,
canvas, felt or leather, and typically employs natural or artificial
abrasives. Polishing performed by hand without machines is not
considered polishing for the purposes of this subpart.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2.
Spray-applied painting means application of paints using a hand-
held device that creates an atomized mist of paint and deposits the
paint on a substrate. For the purposes of this subpart, spray-applied
painting does not include the following materials or activities:
(1) Paints applied from a hand-held device with a paint cup
capacity that is less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cubic centimeters).
(2) Surface coating application using powder coating, hand-held,
non-refillable aerosol containers, or non-atomizing application
technology, including, but not limited to, paint brushes, rollers, hand
wiping, flow coating, dip coating, electrodeposition coating, web
coating, coil coating, touch-up markers, or marking pens.
(3) Painting operations that normally require the use of an
airbrush or an extension on the spray gun to properly reach limited
access spaces; the application of paints that contain fillers that
adversely affect atomization with HVLP spray guns, and the application
of paints that normally have a dried film thickness of less than 0.0013
centimeter (0.0005 in.).
(4) Thermal spray operations (also known as metallizing, flame
spray, plasma arc spray, and electric arc spray, among other names) in
which solid metallic or non-metallic material is heated to a molten or
semi-molten state and propelled to the work piece or substrate by
compressed air or other gas, where a bond is produced upon impact.
Thinner means an organic solvent that is added to a paint after the
paint is received from the supplier.
Tool or equipment repair means equipment and devices used to repair
or maintain process equipment or to prepare molds, dies, or other
changeable elements of process equipment.
Totally enclosed and unvented means enclosed so that no air enters
or leaves during operation.
Totally enclosed and unvented dry abrasive blasting chamber means a
dry abrasive blasting enclosure which has no vents to the atmosphere,
thus no emissions. A typical example of this sort of abrasive blasting
enclosure would be a small ``glove box'' enclosure, where the worker
places their hands in openings or gloves that extend into the box and
enable the worker to hold the objects as they are being blasted without
allowing air and blast material to escape the box.
Vented dry abrasive blasting means dry abrasive blasting where the
blast material is moved by air flow from within the chamber to outside
the chamber into the atmosphere or into a control system.
Volatile organic compound (VOC) means any compound defined as VOC
in 40 CFR 51.100(s).
Volume fraction of paint solids means the ratio of the volume of
paint solids (also known as the volume of nonvolatiles) to the volume
of a paint in which it is contained; liters (gal) of paint solids per
liter (gal) of paint.
Welding means a process which joins two metal parts by melting the
parts at the joint and filling the space with molten metal.
Wind event means an occurrence when the 60-minute average wind
speed is greater than 25 miles per hour.
Sec. 63.11523 What General Provisions apply to this subpart?
The provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, applicable to sources
subject to Sec. 63.11514(a) are specified in Table 4 of this subpart.
Table 1 to Subpart XXXXXX of Part 63.--Description of Source Categories
Affected by This Subpart
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal fabrication and finishing
source category Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrical and Electronic Equipment Establishments primarily engaged
Finishing Operations. in high energy particle
acceleration systems and
equipment, electronic
simulators, appliance and
extension cords, bells and
chimes, insect traps, and other
electrical equipment and
supplies not elsewhere
classified. Also, establishments
primarily engaged in
manufacturing electric motors
(except engine starting motors)
and power generators; motor
generator sets; railway motors
and control equipment; and
motors, generators and control
equipment for gasoline,
electric, and oil-electric buses
and trucks.
Fabricated Metal Products............ Establishments primarily engaged
in manufacturing fabricated
metal products, such as fire or
burglary resistive steel safes
and vaults and similar fire or
burglary resistive products; and
collapsible tubes of thin
flexible metal. Also,
establishments primarily engaged
in manufacturing powder
metallurgy products, metal
boxes; metal ladders; metal
household articles, such as ice
cream freezers and ironing
boards; and other fabricated
metal products not elsewhere
classified.
Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler Shops). Establishments primarily engaged
in manufacturing power marine
boilers, pressure and
nonpressure tanks, processing
and storage vessels, heat
exchangers, weldments and
similar products.
Fabricated Structural Metal Establishments primarily engaged
Manufacturing. in fabricating iron and steel or
other metal for structural
purposes, such as bridges,
buildings, and sections for
ships, boats, and barges.
[[Page 18380]]
Heating Equipment, except Electric... Establishments primarily engaged
in manufacturing heating
equipment, except electric and
warm air furnaces, including
gas, oil, and stoker coal fired
equipment for the automatic
utilization of gaseous, liquid,
and solid fuels. Products
produced in this source category
include low-pressure heating
(steam or hot water) boilers,
fireplace inserts, domestic
(steam or hot water) furnaces,
domestic gas burners, gas room
heaters, gas infrared heating
units, combination gas-oil
burners, oil or gas swimming
pool heaters, heating apparatus
(except electric or warm air),
kerosene space heaters, gas
fireplace logs, domestic and
industrial oil burners,
radiators (except electric),
galvanized iron nonferrous metal
range boilers, room heaters
(except electric), coke and gas
burning salamanders, liquid or
gas solar energy collectors,
solar heaters, space heaters
(except electric), mechanical
(domestic and industrial)
stokers, wood and coal-burning
stoves, domestic unit heaters
(except electric), and wall
heaters (except electric).
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Establishments primarily engaged
Finishing Operations. in manufacturing heavy machinery
and equipment of types used
primarily by the construction
industries, such as bulldozers;
concrete mixers; cranes, except
industrial plant overhead and
truck-type cranes; dredging
machinery; pavers; and power
shovels. Also establishments
primarily engaged in
manufacturing forestry equipment
and certain specialized
equipment, not elsewhere
classified, similar to that used
by the construction industries,
such as elevating platforms,
ship cranes, and capstans,
aerial work platforms, and
automobile wrecker hoists. In
addition, establishments
primarily engaged in
manufacturing machinery and
equipment for use in oil and gas
fields or for drilling water
wells, including portable
drilling rigs. Also,
establishments primarily engaged
in manufacturing pumps and
pumping equipment for general
industrial, commercial, or
household use, except fluid
power pumps and motors. This
category includes establishments
primarily engaged in
manufacturing domestic water and
sump pumps.
Iron and Steel Forging............... Establishments primarily engaged
in the forging manufacturing
process, where purchased iron
and steel metal is pressed,
pounded or squeezed under great
pressure into high strength
parts known as forgings. The
forging process is different
from the casting and foundry
processes, as metal used to make
forged parts is never melted and
poured.
Primary Metals Products Manufacturing Establishments primarily engaged
in manufacturing products such
as fabricated wire products
(except springs) made from
purchased wire. These facilities
also manufacture steel balls;
nonferrous metal brads and
nails; nonferrous metal spikes,
staples, and tacks; and other
primary metals products not
elsewhere classified.
Valves and Pipe Fittings............. Establishments primarily engaged
in manufacturing metal valves
and pipe fittings; flanges;
unions, with the exception of
purchased pipes; and other
valves and pipe fittings not
elsewhere classified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructions for Table 2--You may use the mass fraction values in
the following table for solvent blends for which you do not have test
data or manufacturer's formulation data and which match either the
solvent blend name or the chemical abstract series (CAS) number. If a
solvent blend matches both the name and CAS number for an entry, that
entry's organic HAP mass fraction must be used for that solvent blend.
Otherwise, use the organic HAP mass fraction for the entry matching
either the solvent blend name or CAS number, or use the organic HAP
mass fraction from Table 2 to this subpart if neither the name nor CAS
number match.
Table 2 to Subpart XXXXXX of Part 63.--Default Organic HAP Mass Fraction for Solvents and Solvent Blends
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average organic Typical organic HAP, percent
Solvent/solvent blend CAS No. HAP mass fraction by mass
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Toluene................................ 108-88-3 1.0 Toluene.
2. Xylene(s).............................. 1330-20-7 1.0 Xylenes, Ethylbenzene.
3. Hexane................................. 110-54-3 0.5 n-hexane.
4. n-Hexane............................... 110-54-3 1.0 n-hexane.
5. Ethylbenzene........................... 100-41-4 1.0 Ethylbenzene.
6. Aliphatic 140.......................... ................. 0 None.
7. Aromatic 100........................... ................. 0.02 1% xylene, 1% cumene.
8. Aromatic 150........................... ................. 0.09 Naphthalene.
9. Aromatic naphtha....................... 64742-95-6 0.02 1% xylene, 1% cumene.
10. Aromatic solvent...................... 64742-94-5 0.1 Naphthalene.
11. Exempt mineral spirits................ 8032-32-4 0 None.
12. Ligroines (VM & P).................... 8032-32-4 0 None.
[[Page 18381]]
13. Lactol spirits........................ 64742-89-6 0.15 Toluene.
14. Low aromatic white spirit............. 64742-82-1 0 None.
15. Mineral spirits....................... 64742-88-7 0.01 Xylenes.
16. Hydrotreated naphtha.................. 64742-48-9 0 None.
17. Hydrotreated light distillate......... 64742-47-8 0.001 Toluene.
18. Stoddard Solvent...................... 8052-41-3 0.01 Xylenes.
19. Super high-flash naphtha.............. 64742-95-6 0.05 Xylenes.
20. Varsol [reg] solvent.................. 8052-49-3 0.01 0.5% xylenes, 0.5%
ethylbenzene.
21. VM & P naphtha........................ 64742-89-8 0.06 3% toluene, 3% xylene.
22. Petroleum distillate mixtures......... 68477-31-6 0.08 4% naphthalene, 4% biphenyl.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructions for Table 3--You may use the mass fraction values in
the following table for solvent blends for which you do not have test
data or manufacturer's formulation data.
Table 3 to Subpart XXXXXX of Part 63.--Default Organic HAP Mass Fraction
for Petroleum Solvent Groupsa
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
organic HAP Typical organic HAP,
Solvent type mass percent by mass
fraction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aliphatic b........................ 0.03 1% Xylene, 1% Toluene,
1% Ethylbenzene, 1%
Ethylbenzene, 1%
Toluene, 1%
Ethylbenzene.
Aromatic c......................... 0.06 4% Xylene, 1% Toluene,
1% Ethylbenzene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Use this table only if the solvent blend does not match any of the
solvent blends in Table 2 to this subpart by either solvent blend name
or CAS number and you only know whether the blend is aliphatic or
aromatic.
b E.g., Mineral Spirits 135, Mineral Spirits 150 EC, Naphtha, Mixed
Hydrocarbon, Aliphatic Hydrocarbon, Aliphatic Naphtha, Naphthol
Spirits, Petroleum Spirits, Petroleum Oil, Petroleum Naphtha, Solvent
Naphtha, Solvent Blend.
c E.g., Medium-flash Naphtha, High-flash Naphtha, Aromatic Naphtha,
Light Aromatic Naphtha, Light Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Aromatic
Hydrocarbons, Light Aromatic Solvent.
Instructions for Table 4--As required in Sec. 63.11523, ``General
Provisions Requirements,'' you much meet each requirement in the
following table that applies to you.
Table 4 to Subpart XXXXXX of Part 63.--Applicability of General
Provisions to Metal Fabrication or Finishing Area Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1 \1\.............................. Applicability.
63.2.................................. Definitions.
63.3.................................. Units and abbreviations.
63.4.................................. Prohibited activities.
63.5.................................. Construction/reconstruction.
63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5), (c)(1), Compliance with standards and
(c)(2), (c)(5), (g), (i), (j). maintenance requirements.
63.9(a)-(d)........................... Notification requirements.
63.10(a), (b) except for (b)(2), Recordkeeping and reporting.
(d)(1), (d)(4).
63.12................................. State authority and delegations.
63.13................................. Addresses of State air pollution
control agencies and EPA
regional offices.
63.14................................. Incorporation by reference.
63.15................................. Availability of information and
confidentiality.
63.16................................. Performance track provisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sec. 63.11514(g), ``Am I subject to this subpart?'' exempts
affected sources from the obligation to obtain title V operating
permits.
[FR Doc. E8-6411 Filed 4-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P