[Federal Register: April 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 65)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18333-18381]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03ap08-31]
[[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
[[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: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
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: jones.donnalee@epa.gov.
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 orders@ashrae.org. 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 pollu