Browse by Year
/ 2008
/ July
/ Wednesday, July 23, 2008
[Federal Register: July 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 142)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42977-43011]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23jy08-12]
[[Page 42977]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
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;
Final Rule
[[Page 42978]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0306; FRL-8683-3]
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is issuing national emission standards for control of
hazardous air pollutants for nine metal fabrication and finishing area
source categories (identified in section I.A. below). This final rule
establishes 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
standards reflect EPA's determination regarding the generally
achievable control technology and/or management practices for the nine
area source categories.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 23, 2008. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in this final rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 23, 2008.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0306. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Federal Docket Management System index at 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 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Area Source
Categories 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. Where can I get a copy of this document?
C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for This Final Rule
III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
A. Applicability
B. Compliance Dates
C. Standards and Compliance Requirements
D. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
E. Definitions
F. Other
IV. Summary of Final Standards
A. Do the final standards apply to my source?
B. When must I comply with these standards?
C. What processes does this final rule address?
D. What are the emissions control requirements?
E. What are the initial compliance requirements?
F. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
G. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
A. Applicability
B. Compliance Dates
C. Scope of Rule
D. Impacts of Rule
E. Management Practices
F. Monitoring
VI. Impacts of the Final 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?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
final action are shown in Table 1 below. This final rule applies to
area sources \a\ where the primary activity of their facilities is 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. More specifically, this rule applies to area
sources in these nine source categories that use or have the potential
to emit compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, or nickel from
metal fabrication or finishing operations. Facilities affected by this
final 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 final rule. There potentially
may be other operations at the area sources that are not subject to the
requirements of this final rule, but are instead subject to subpart
HHHHHH of this part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Section 112(a) of the Clean Air Act defines an area source
as any stationary source of HAP that is not a major source. A major
source is defined as any stationary source or group of stationary
sources located within a contiguous area and under common control
that emits, or has the potential to emit, considering controls, in
the aggregate, 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or
25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.
[[Page 42979]]
Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities Potentially Affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal fabrication and finishing category NAICS codes \1\ Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrical and Electronics Equipment 335999, 335312 Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
Finishing Operations. motors and generators; and electrical machinery,
equipment, and supplies, not elsewhere classified.
The electrical machinery equipment and supplies
industry sector of this source category 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 of this source category 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, 332999 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).... 332313, 332410, Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
332420 power and marine boilers, pressure and nonpressure
tanks, processing and storage vessels, heat
exchangers, weldments and similar products.
Fabricated Structural Metal 332312 Establishments primarily engaged in fabricating iron
Manufacturing. and steel or other metal for structural purposes,
such as bridges, buildings, and sections for ships,
boats, and barges.
Heating Equipments, except Electric..... 333414 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
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 333120, 333132, Establishments primarily engaged in construction
Finishing Operations. 333911 machinery manufacturing; oil and gas field
machinery manufacturing; and pumps and pumping
equipment manufacturing. The construction machinery
manufacturing industry sector of this source
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 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 filed machinery
manufacturing industry sector of this source
category 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. The pumps and
pumping equipment industry sector of this source
category 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 Manufacturing... 332618 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................ 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 provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be effected by this
action. 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. To determine whether your
facility would be regulated by this action you should examine the
applicability criteria in the final rule (40 CFR 63.11514, ``Am I
subject to this subpart?''). 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
[[Page 42980]]
listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of this final 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.
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by September 22, 2008. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background Information for This Final Rule
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 hazardous air pollutants (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 selected these nine source categories for regulation
based on these required analyses. We then implemented these
requirements through the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR
38715, July 19, 1999) and subsequent updates to the source category
list.
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of
generally available control technologies or management practices by
such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' As
explained in the preamble to the proposed NESHAP, we are issuing
standards based on generally available control technology (GACT).
We are issuing these final 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 (72 FR 38864, July 16,
2007.) Other rulemakings will include standards for the remaining
source categories that are due in June 2008.
III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
A. Applicability
In response to comments, we made several changes to clarify the
applicability of this final rule. Specifically, we have revised the
definition of metal fabrication and finishing HAP (MFHAP) to mean any
compound of cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel. We also
clarified throughout this final rule that this final rule applies only
to area sources in the nine source categories that use or have the
potential to emit MFHAP.\b\ In addition, we have revised the definition
of MFHAP to clarify that material that ``contains'' MFHAP means a
material containing one or more MFHAP as shown in formulation data
provided by the manufacturer or supplier, such as the Material Safety
Data Sheet for the material. Any material that does not contain
cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel in amounts greater than or equal to
0.1 percent by weight (as the metal), and does not contain manganese in
amounts greater than or equal to 1.0 percent by weight (as the metal),
is not considered to be a material containing MFHAP. We have also added
language clarifying that the rule does not apply to military
installations, NASA and National Nuclear Security facilities, and
aerospace facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\b\ Note that the control devices and management practices that
control and/or reduce emissions of MFHAP in this rule also control
and/or reduce emissions of all HAP (including the additional metal
HAP of arsenic, cobalt, and selenium, for example) that have the
potential to be emitted, as those HAP are included in, or adsorbed
or condensed onto, the PM. All potential metal HAP emissions are
thereby controlled because the equipment standards and management
practices in this rule control particulate matter (PM) as a
surrogate for MFHAP and any other metal HAP (as listed above), that
have the potential to be emitted, via these PM controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Compliance Dates
We made changes to the compliance dates of this final rule.
Specifically, we have extended the two-year compliance period to three
years for existing affected sources. We have also corrected errors in
the compliance dates for new sources.
C. Standards and Compliance Requirements
In response to comments, we have made several changes to the
standards for operations at the nine metal fabrication and finishing
source categories, and more specific changes to the standards for
abrasive blasting, painting, and welding.
[[Page 42981]]
For all operations where the proposed rule required regularly
scheduled sweeping, we have changed the requirement to take measures
necessary to minimize excess dust.
For abrasive blasting, we have revised the rule text to clarify the
requirements for objects greater than 8 feet in any dimension. These
objects are allowed to be abrasive blasted without control devices, but
sources must still comply with all applicable management practices for
such operations and conduct visible emissions monitoring. We have also
changed the requirements for outdoor abrasive blasting to remove the
prohibition on blasting during wind events and on substrates with
coatings containing lead.
For painting operations, in response to comments we have removed
the VOHAP coating limit requirements. Also, we have revised the
provisions regulating MFHAP emissions from painting so that sources in
the Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing source category (Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) 3441, NAICS 332312) are only subject to
the spray painting management practices (i.e., use of HVLP paint guns,
painter training and certification, and spray gun cleaning
requirements).
For welding, we have revised the rule to clarify that the
management practices are to be implemented ``as practicable,'' and in
accordance with sound welding engineering principles, while maintaining
required weld quality. We have also removed the requirement for
specific control efficiency for welding fume control systems.
We have also changed the process by which facilities seek approval
to use an alternative equipment standard other than those specifically
listed in this final rule. In the proposal we indicated that facilities
that would like to use equipment other than those listed must seek
approval to do so pursuant to the procedures in Sec. 63.6(g) of the
General Provisions to part 63. We did not receive any comments on this
part of the proposal, nor did any commenters identify any alternative
equipment standards that are equivalent to those specified in this
final rule. We believe that facilities should be able to request
approval to use an alternative equipment standard, and therefore, we
have identified two different options available to facilities that
would like to use alternative equipment that achieves at least
equivalent MFHAP emission reductions as the controls specified in this
final rule: (1) Facilities may petition the Agency to amend this final
rule pursuant to section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act, or
(2) facilities may work with state permitting authorities pursuant to
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR subpart E (``Approval of State Programs and
Delegation of Federal Authorities''). Subpart E implements section
112(l) of the CAA, which authorizes EPA to approve alternative state/
local/tribal HAP standards or programs when such requirements are
demonstrated to be no less stringent than EPA promulgated standards. We
believe that these options are more appropriate mechanisms for area
sources subject to section 112(d)(5) rules to obtain approval of
alternative equipment standards.
In response to comments, we have also made several changes to the
compliance requirements. We eliminated the visual determination of
fugitive emissions requirements for dry abrasive blasting performed in
vented chambers, dry grinding and dry polishing with machines, and
machining. We have maintained the visual determination of fugitive
emissions requirement for abrasive blasting of objects greater than 8
feet in any dimension performed without the use of a control device. We
have changed the graduated schedule for visible emissions testing to
allow for quarterly testing after three months of successful monthly
tests (i.e., tests where no visible emissions are detected). We have
also removed the visual emissions determination requirements for
smaller welding operations that annually use less than 2,000 pounds of
welding rod containing one or more MFHAP.
D. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
We have revised Sec. 63.11519, ``What are my notification,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements?'' of this final rule to add
a requirement for submittal of annual certification and compliance
reports (which were already required to be prepared and maintained on-
site.) We have also corrected the submittal dates for the Initial
Notification and Compliance of Notification Status reports.
E. Definitions
We have made several changes to the definitions in Sec. 63.11522,
``What definitions apply to this subpart?'', of this final rule and
have added definitions for other terms used in this final rule. We
added definitions for control device, filtration control device,
material containing MFHAP, military munitions, and quality control
activities. We have revised the definitions of dry grinding and
polishing with machines, facility maintenance, and MFHAP.
F. Other
We also corrected some typographical errors that appeared in
various sections of the proposed rule.
IV. Summary of Final Standards
A. Do the final standards apply to my source?
This final rule (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 use or
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). Source categories
affected by this final 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
operations subject to the requirements of this final rule. There
potentially may be other operations at the facility not subject to the
requirements of this final rule that are instead subject to subpart
HHHHHH of this part.
B. When must I comply with these standards?
All existing area source facilities subject to this final rule will
be required to comply with the rule requirements no later than July 25,
2011. New sources must comply with the requirements of this final rule
by July 23, 2008 or start-up; whichever is later.
C. What processes does this final rule address?
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
[[Page 42982]]
dry polishing with machines; (3) machining; (4) spray painting; and (5)
welding, which we have further differentiated into nine distinct metal
fabrication and finishing processes.
For dry abrasive blasting operations, this final rule addresses
three distinct types of blasting operations: (1) Those performed in
completely enclosed chambers that do not allow any air or emissions to
escape, (2) those performed in vented enclosures, and (3) those
performed on objects greater than 8 feet in any dimension that are not
performed in vented enclosures.
We identified three distinct types of spray painting operations
that emit MFHAP: (1) Operations that spray paint objects less than or
equal to 15 feet in any dimension where paint spray booths or spray
rooms are commonly used; (2) operations that spray paint objects
greater than 15 feet in any dimension for which paint spray booths or
spray rooms are not used; and (3) spray painting operations in the
Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing source category, which also
do not use paint spray booths or spray rooms. The latter two types of
processes that do not use spray booths or spray rooms were combined for
applicability of this final rule. Therefore this final rule addresses:
(1) Spray painting of objects, in general, and (2) spray painting of
objects greater than 15 feet in any dimension or spray painting
operations in the Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing source
category.
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 the two for painting described above, results in
eight total processes addressed by this final rule, as follows: (1) Dry
abrasive blasting performed in completely enclosed and unvented blast
chambers; (2) dry abrasive blasting performed in vented enclosures; (3)
dry abrasive blasting of objects greater than 8 feet in any dimension
that are not performed in vented enclosures; (4) dry grinding and dry
polishing with machines; (5) machining; (6) control of MFHAP in the
spray painting of objects in paint spray booths or spray rooms; (7)
control of MFHAP in the spray painting of objects greater than 15 feet
in any dimension, or spray painting operations in the Fabricated
Structural Metal Manufacturing source category; and (8) welding.
D. What are the emissions control requirements?
The following is a description of the control requirements for the
eight metal fabrication and finishing processes described above in
section III.C of this preamble. The control requirements only apply
when an operation is being performed that uses materials that contain
or have the potential to emit MFHAP.\c\ The definition of
``containing'' MFHAP is identical to the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) definitions specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4),
where carcinogens are contained in quantities of 0.1 percent by mass or
more, and 1.0 percent by mass or more for noncarcinogens, as shown in
formulation data provided by the manufacturer or supplier, such as the
Material Safety Data Sheet for the material. For MFHAP, this
corresponds to materials that contain cadmium, chromium, lead, or
nickel in amounts greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight (as
the metal), and manganese in amounts greater than or equal to 1.0
percent by weight (as the metal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\c\ See footnote (b) above that discusses the co-control of all
HAP via control of MFHAP with the PM controls of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Standards for Dry Abrasive Blasting 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 final rule requires 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 Performed in Vented Enclosures
This final rule requires owners or operators of affected new and
existing dry abrasive blasting operations performed in vented
enclosures 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 to control particulate matter (PM) emissions, as a
surrogate for MFHAP, from the process.
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 ensure that no air or PM exits the chamber while blasting is
performed. Apertures or slots may be present in the roof or walls to
allow for transport of the blasted objects using overhead cranes, or
cable and cord entry into the blasting chamber.
This final rule also requires owners or operators of all affected
new and existing dry abrasive blasting operations performed in vented
enclosures to comply with the following three management and pollution
prevention practices: (1) As practicable, take measures necessary to
minimize excess dust in the surrounding area to reduce MFHAP emissions;
(2) enclose abrasive material storage areas and holding bins, seal
chutes and conveyors transporting abrasive materials; 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 final rule requires owners or operators of affected new and
existing dry abrasive blasting operations that perform abrasive
blasting on substrates greater than 8 feet in any dimension without
control systems to comply with the following four management and
pollution prevention practices to minimize MFHAP emissions from the
processes: (1) Switch from high PM-emitting blast media (e.g., sand) to
low PM-emitting blast media (e.g., crushed glass, specular hematite,
steel shot, aluminum oxide), whenever practicable; (2) 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; (3) enclose abrasive material storage areas and holding
bins, seal chutes and conveyors transporting abrasive materials; and
(4) operate all equipment according to manufacturer's instructions.
This final rule also requires that visible emissions monitoring be
performed.
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 MFHAP. Dry grinding and dry
polishing with machines operations do not include dry grinding and dry
polishing operations performed with hand-held or bench-scale devices.
This final rule requires owners or operators of affected new and
existing
[[Page 42983]]
dry grinding and dry polishing with machines operations to capture PM
emissions, as a surrogate for MFHAP, and vent the exhaust to a
cartridge, fabric, or HEPA filter.
This final rule also requires 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) As practicable, take measures necessary to minimize
excess dust in the surrounding area to reduce PM emissions; 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 final
rule requires 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) As practicable, take measures necessary to minimize
excess dust in the surrounding area to reduce PM emissions; and (2)
operate equipment used in machining operations according to
manufacturer's instructions.
6. Standards for Control of MFHAP From Spray Painting
This final rule requires new and existing spray painting affected
sources to comply with two equipment standards: (1) Use of spray booths
or spray rooms equipped with PM filters and (2) the use of low-emitting
and pollution preventing spray gun technology. This final rule also
requires two management practices associated with the spray gun
technology: (1) Spray painter training; and (2) spray gun cleaning. The
requirement for PM filters does not apply to spray painting of objects
greater than 15 feet in any dimension and spray painting at Fabricated
Structural Metal Manufacturing facilities not performed in spray
booths, which are discussed separately in IV.D.7, below.
The following painting activities are not covered in this final
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 Booth PM Control Requirement. This final rule requires the
spray booths or spray rooms \d\ of affected new and existing facilities
to be fitted with fiberglass or polyester fiber filters or other
comparable filter technology that has been demonstrated to achieve at
least 98 percent control efficiency of paint overspray (also referred
to as ``arrestance''). As an alternate compliance option, spray booths
or spray rooms can be equipped with a water curtain, called a
``waterwash'' or ``waterspray'' booth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\d\ 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 or spray rooms
equipped with a PM filter, the procedure used to demonstrate filter
efficiency must be consistent with the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Method 52.1,
``Gravimetric and Dust-Spot Procedures for Testing Air-Cleaning Devices
Used in General Ventilation for Removing Particulate Matter, June 4,
1992'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14). 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 must 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
(psi); 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 the 98
percent efficiency requirement and would not be required to perform
this measurement.
Waterwash spray booths or spray rooms--As an alternative compliance
option, spray booths or spray rooms may be equipped with a water
curtain that achieves at least 98 percent control of MFHAP. The
waterwash or ``waterspray'' spray booths or spray rooms must be
required to operated and maintained according to the manufacturer's
specifications.
Spray Gun Technology Requirements. This final rule requires all
affected new and existing facilities using spray-applied paints to use
HVLP spray guns, electrostatic application, or airless spray
techniques.
If you would like to use paint spray equipment that you believe is
equivalent to HVLP spray guns, you must seek the appropriate approval,
as explained above in section III.C. The method that you use to show
the equivalency of the alternate spray equipment must conform with 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).
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
[[Page 42984]]
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 requirements of
this paragraph do not apply to painting performed by students and
instructors at paint training centers.
Spray Painting Training Requirements. This final rule requires 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 must be certified as having
completed classroom or hands-on training in the proper selection,
mixing, and application of paints. Refresher training must be repeated
at least once every 5 years. These requirements do not apply to
operators of robotic or automated surface painting operations. The
initial and refresher training must 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 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 are not required to provide the initial training
required for these painters.
Spray painters at existing sources must be trained by the
compliance date, or 180 days after hiring, whichever is later. Spray
painters at new sources must be trained and certified no later than
January 20, 2009, 180 days after startup, or 180 days after hiring,
whichever is later. These 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
rule is valid for a period not to exceed 5 years after the date the
training is completed.
Spray Gun Cleaning Requirements. This final rule requires all paint
spray gun cleaning operations at affected new and existing facilities
to be done with either non-HAP gun cleaning solvents, or in such a
manner that an atomized mist or spray of spray gun cleaning solvent and
paint residue is not created outside of a container that collects used
gun cleaning solvent. Spray gun cleaning may be done, 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.
7. Standards for Control of MFHAP From Spray Painting of Objects
Greater Than 15 Feet in Any Dimension and Spray Painting at Fabricated
Structural Metal Manufacturing Facilities Not Performed in Spray Booths
This final rule requires owners or operators of new and existing
spray painting affected sources which paint objects greater than 15
feet in any dimension and owners or operators of new and existing spray
painting affected sources in the Fabricated Structural Metal
Manufacturing source category, that are not performed in spray booths,
to comply with an equipment standard, the use of low-emitting and
pollution preventing spray gun technology. This final rule also
requires two management practices: (1) Spray painter training and (2)
spray gun cleaning. Paint operations that comply with these
requirements do not need to comply with the PM filter requirements
listed above for spray painting of objects in spray booths.
Sources subject to the MFHAP requirements from spray painting
objects greater than 15 feet in any dimension must also meet the same
requirements for spray gun technology standards, spray painting
training requirements, and spray gun cleaning requirements as those
specified above in IV.D.6 for the spray painting of objects in paint
spray booths or rooms.
8. Standards for Welding
This final rule requires owners or operators of affected new and
existing welding operations to minimize emissions of MFHAP by
implementing one or more of the following management practices to be
used as practicable, while concurrently maintaining the required
welding quality through the application of sound welding engineering
judgment:
(A) Use of welding processes with reduced fume generation
capabilities (e.g., gas metal arc welding (GMAW)--also called metal
inert gas welding (MIG));
(B) Use of welding process variations (e.g., pulsed GMAW), which
can reduce fume generation rates;
(C) Use of welding filler metals, shielding gases, carrier gases,
or other process materials which are capable of reduced welding fume
generation;
(D) Optimize welding process variables (e.g., electrode diameter,
voltage, amperage, welding angle, shield gas flow rate, travel speed)
to reduce the amount of welding fume generated; and
(E) Use of a welding fume capture and control system, operated
according to the manufacturer's specifications.
E. What are the initial compliance requirements?
To demonstrate initial compliance with this final 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 must 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 use or have the potential
to emit MFHAP must also certify that they are in compliance with the
following requirements: use of PM filters in spray booths or spray
rooms; 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 of objects greater than 8 feet in any dimension; PM control
efficiency rating of filters used in spray painting objects in spray
booths or spray
[[Page 42985]]
rooms for MFHAP control; and visual emissions testing for welding at
facilities that use 2,000 pounds or more per year of MFHAP-containing
welding rod (on a rolling 12-month average basis). These requirements
are discussed in more detail below.
1. Continuous Compliance Requirements for All Sources
This final rule requires owners or operators of all affected new
and existing sources to demonstrate continuous compliance by adhering
to the management practices specified in this final rule and
maintaining the appropriate records to document this compliance.
Owners or operators that comply with this final rule by operating
capture and control systems must operate and maintain each capture
system and control device according to the manufacturer's
specifications. They also must maintain records to document conformance
with this requirement and keep the manufacturer's instruction manual
available at the facility at all times.
2. Visual Emissions Testing for Dry Abrasive Blasting of Objects
Greater Than 8 Feet in Any Dimension To Determine Continuous Compliance
Visible Emissions Testing. For new and existing affected sources of
dry abrasive blasting operations of objects greater than 8 feet in any
dimension who comply with the provisions of Sec. 63.11516(a)(3),
``What are my standards and management practices?'', this final rule
requires visible emissions testing to demonstrate continuous compliance
with management and pollution prevention practices intended to reduce
emissions of PM, as a surrogate for MFHAP.
The affected sources of dry abrasive blasting of objects greater
than 8 feet in any dimension must perform visual determinations of
fugitive emissions, according to the graduated schedule described
below, using EPA Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7) for a period
of 15 continuous minutes at the fence line or property border nearest
to the outdoor abrasive blasting operation, or at the primary vent,
stack, exit, or opening from the building for indoor blasting
operations. The presence of visible emissions must be noted if any
emissions are observed for more than a total of 6 minutes during the
15-minute period. In case of failure in any Method 22 test, immediate
corrective action is required to reduce or eliminate the visible
emissions. The affected source is then required to perform more
frequent visible emissions testing, as described in the graduated
schedule below.
Graduated Testing Schedule. The graduated schedule for continuous
compliance with visible emissions testing for this rule, which
progresses from daily to weekly to monthly to quarterly testing, is as
follows.
Affected sources of dry abrasive blasting of objects greater than 8
feet in any dimension are required to be tested daily for visible
emissions with Method 22 for 10 consecutive days that the source is in
operation. If visible emissions are not observed during these 10 days,
the affected source can be tested once every 5 consecutive days
(weekly) that the source is in operation. If no visible emissions are
observed during these four consecutive weekly Method 22 tests, the
affected source can be tested once per consecutive 21 days (month) of
operation. If no visible emissions are observed during three
consecutive monthly Method 22 tests, the affected source can be tested
once per consecutive three months of operation (quarterly). If any
visible emissions are observed during the weekly, monthly, or quarterly
testing, the affected source must resume visible emissions testing on
the more frequent schedule, i.e. , weekly visible emissions testing is
increased to daily, monthly testing is increased to weekly, and
quarterly testing is increased to monthly.
3. Tests for Spray Painting for MFHAP Control To Determine Continuous
Compliance
Affected new and existing facilities that perform spray painting
must ensure and certify that: (1) All new and existing personnel,
including contract personnel, who spray-apply surface paints with MFHAP
are trained in the proper application of surface paints; (2) all spray-
applied paints with MFHAP are applied with a HVLP spray gun,
electrostatic application, airless spray gun, or equivalent; (3)
emissions of MFHAP are minimized during mixing, storage, and transfer
of paints; and (4) paint and solvent lids are kept closed when not in
use.
In addition, for spray painting objects less than or equal to 15
feet in any dimension (except for spray painting affected sources in
the Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing source category), owners
or operators of affected processes must ensure and certify that paint
spray booths or spray rooms are fitted with fiberglass or polyester
fiber filters or other comparable filter or waterspray technology that
can be demonstrated to achieve at least 98 percent control efficiency
of the MFHAP in the paint.
4. Visual Emissions Testing for Welding To Determine Continuous
Compliance
For new and existing affected sources with welding operations that
use 2,000 pounds or more per year of MFHAP-containing welding rod (on a
rolling 12-month average basis), this final rule requires visible
emissions testing from a vent, stack, exit, or opening from the
building containing the welding metal fabrication and finishing
operations to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emissions
standards in this rule, which are expressed as management practices and
equipment standards. This testing has a three-tier compliance
structure.
Tier 1. The first tier for welding compliance requires visual
determinations of fugitive emissions using EPA Method 22 and allows the
same graduated testing schedule described above in section III.F.2 for
dry abrasive blasting of objects 8 feet or more in any dimension, which
includes provisions for reducing the frequency of the Method 22 tests
when no visible emissions are observed in consecutive time periods of
operation. If no visible emissions are found, no corrective action is
required.
If visible emissions are present during any Method 22 test,
immediate corrective action will be required that includes inspection
of all fume sources and control methods in operation, and documentation
of the visual emissions test results. In this instance, the graduated
schedule requires the affected source to resume visible emissions
testing in the previous, more frequent schedule, i.e., weekly visible
emissions testing is increased to daily, monthly testing is increased
to weekly, and quarterly testing is increased to monthly.
Tier 2. The second tier for welding compliance must be implemented
if visible emissions are detected for the second time in any
consecutive 12-month period. The second tier requires corrective action
and documentation of the detection of visible emissions and the
corrective action taken. Corrective action must take place immediately
after the failed Method 22 test. In addition, the second tier for
welding compliance requires a facility to perform a visual
determination of emissions opacity using EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-4) within 24 hours of the failed Method 22 test. In EPA
Method 9, the average of 24 15-second intervals of opacity observation
is determined, producing a total of 360 seconds or 6
[[Page 42986]]
minutes of opacity observation or 6-minute average opacity.
If in the second tier tests using Method 9 the average of the 6-
minute opacities is determined to be 20 percent or less, implementation
of Method 9 testing is required with a graduated schedule of reduced
frequency like that used for the Method 22 tests, described above in
section III.F.2, from daily to weekly to monthly to quarterly for
consecutive successful tests. If opacity continues to be less than or
equal to 20 percent and, pursuant to the graduated schedule the Method
9 testing for the welding processes is able to be reduced to once a
month, the facility would have the choice of switching back to
performing Method 22 tests on a monthly basis. Alternatively, the
facility could choose to continue performing monthly Method 9 tests.
With either test method, the facility can reduce to quarterly testing
if there are no exceedences in three consecutive monthly tests.
If the average of the 6-minute opacities is determined to be
greater than 20 percent in the Method 9 tests in the second tier, the
third tier of welding compliance requirements is required, as described
below.
Tier 3. The third tier for welding compliance includes the
development and implementation of a Site-specific Welding Emissions
Management Plan (SWMP) within 30 days and submittal of the SWMP to the
delegated authority. The SWMP must be kept at the facility in a readily
accessible location for inspector review. Also, the facility must
report any exceedence of the 20 percent opacity limit on an annual
basis along with their annual certification and compliance report.
The purpose of the SWMP is to ensure that no visible emissions
occur in the future from this process, as determined by EPA Method 22
tests or 20 percent opacity or less by EPA Method 9. Application of the
SWMP may involve more effective implementation of the management and
pollution prevention practices, beyond the levels already in place at
the facility, or, as a final option, the use of capture equipment and
control devices. During the development of the SWMP, daily Method 9
tests are required to continue to be performed, according to the
graduated schedule. The SWMP must be updated after any failures to meet
20 percent or less opacity as determined by Method 9. If opacity
continues to be 20 percent or less and Method 9 testing of the welding
processes at the facility falls to once a month, according to the
graduated testing schedule, the facility will have a choice of changing
to monthly Method 22 tests or remaining with monthly Method 9, as
above. The SWMP must be updated annually and include revisions to
reflect any changes in welding operations or controls at the facility.
The SWMP must address the following: the type(s) of welding
operation(s) currently used at the facility; the measures used to
minimize welding fume at each of type of welding operation or each
welding station; and procedures used by the facility to ensure that
these measures are being implemented. No outside consultants or
professional engineer certification is required or necessary to prepare
the SWMP.
G. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
The affected new and existing sources are required to comply with
certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart
A), which are identified in Table 2 of this final rule. Each new source
is required to submit an Initial Notification no later than 120 days
after initial startup or November 20, 2008, whichever is later.
Existing affected sources must submit the Initial Notification no later
than July 25, 2011. Notification of Compliance Status reports are
required to be submitted according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9
in the General Provisions no later than 120 days after the applicable
compliance date. The affected source is required to prepare and submit
an annual certification and compliance status report. If there are any
exceedences during the year, the facility must submit this annual
certification and compliance report with any exceedence reports
prepared during the year. The exceedence reports must describe the
circumstance of the exceedence and the corrective action taken.
Facilities also are required to maintain all records that
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with this final rule,
including records of all required notifications and reports, with
supporting documentation; and records showing compliance with
management and pollution prevention practices. Owners and operators
must also maintain records of the following, if applicable: date and
results of all visual determinations of fugitive emissions, including
any follow-up tests and corrective actions taken; date and results of
all visual determinations of emissions opacity, and corrective actions
taken; and a copy of the SWMP, if it is required.
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
We received a total of 24 comments on the proposed NESHAP from
industry representatives, trade associations, federal and state
agencies, and the general public during the public comment period.
Sections V.A through V.F of this preamble provide responses to the
significant public comments received on the proposed NESHAP.
A. Applicability
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern regarding potential
overlap between the applicability of this subpart (XXXXXX) and other
part 63 NESHAP. One commenter said that EPA should clarify that the
proposed rule does not apply to ``dry grinding and dry polishing with
machines'' affected sources that are also subject to the proposed area
source standards for plating and polishing operations, subpart WWWWWW.
Commenters also indicated that there appeared to be overlap with Paint
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating NESHAP, subpart HHHHHH, as
there was overlap in the potentially applicable NAICS codes provided in
the preambles. The commenter said that EPA should clarify that the rule
does not apply to metal fabrication and finishing operations that are
subject to a major source NESHAP, in particular the Aerospace
Manufacturing NESHAP (subpart GG).
Response: Operations at a facility in one of the nine area source
categories specifically listed in Sec. 63.11514, ``Am I subject to
this subpart?'', specifically paragraphs (a)(1) through (9), are
subject to this final rule. Each of these area source categories is
characterized by the descriptions provided in Table 1 in section I.A of
this preamble. The miscellaneous surface coating requirements in
subpart HHHHHH are more generic regulations that apply to processes at
many different types of facilities. The specificity regarding the
applicability of this final rule overrides the more generic
miscellaneous coating regulation in subpart HHHHHH, mainly because it
is specified as such in subpart HHHHHH. In other words, if a facility
is in one of the nine area source categories included under this final
rule, it is not subject to any other area source regulation for the
operations regulated by this final rule: abrasive blasting, dry
grinding and dry polishing with machines, machining, spray painting,
and welding.
On the other hand, operations addressed by the Plating and
Polishing NESHAP (subpart WWWWWW), such
[[Page 42987]]
as dry mechanical polishing operations performed after plating to
complete the plating processes, and thermal spraying are subject to
subpart WWWWWW. Therefore, any area source facilities that conduct
polishing after plating or thermal spraying would be subject to subpart
WWWWWW for their plating and polishing operations. However, the MFHAP
control requirements for dry polishing with machines are identical
between subpart WWWWWW for ``dry mechanical polishing,'' and this final
rule for ``dry polishing with machines.'' The recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are also the same between the two rules for
polishing operations. At the time of this final rule, we were not aware
of any overlap of facilities between these two area source rules, but
since there may be sources in the future where there is an overlap, we
leave open the possibility of the applicability of both rules.
With regard to the comment related to the major sources subject to
the Aerospace NESHAP, we would point out that (1) Aerospace facilities
would not be included under any of the nine source categories subject
to this final rule, and (2) major sources are not subject to this final
rule, as this final rule applies only to area sources.
Comment: Other commenters more specifically addressed the potential
overlap between the Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Area Source
Category rule and subpart HHHHHH, Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous
Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources NESHAP. The commenters noted
that the proposed rule indicated that facilities covered by the
proposed rule would be exempt from subpart HHHHHH. However, they said
since subpart HHHHHH is already final, permitting authorities cannot
exempt facilities from it merely on the basis of a subsequent proposed
regulation, such as the metal fabrication NESHAP. One commenter
recommended that EPA reverse the applicability and state that
facilities subject to and complying with the requirements of subpart
HHHHHH would be considered in compliance with the MFHAP provisions for
painting operations under this metal fabrication NESHAP. The commenter
said that facilities would still be required to comply with other
provisions that are not covered under subpart HHHHHH.
Response: While we understand the potential confusion between the
applicability of these two area source regulations, coating operations
at a facility in one of the nine source categories specifically listed
in Sec. 63.11514, ``Am I subject to this subpart?'', specifically
paragraphs (a)(1) through (9), are subject to this final rule and not
subpart HHHHHH (the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations Sources NESHAP). We believe that the simplicity of having
all affected sources at a single facility in one of these nine metal
fabrication and finishing area source categories subject to a single
subpart is better in the long term. Further, subpart HHHHHH was
promulgated on January 9, 2008, and its compliance date for existing
sources is not until January 10, 2011. We believe that any short term
permitting complexities that have arisen in the five or six months
between promulgation of the final Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous
Surface Coating NESHAP and the Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing
Area Source Category NESHAP can be addressed in the two and one-half
years before their compliances dates. Therefore, we did not make
changes in accordance with the commenter's recommendation.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification of potential overlap
of the metal fabrication rule and subpart HHHHHH. They note that the
applicability section of the proposed rule states that if a facility is
``subject to'' the provisions of this final rule, it is not subject to
subpart HHHHHH, the Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations Rule. The
commenter interprets this to mean that if a facility is in one of the
nine source categories covered by this final rule, it is ``subject to''
this final rule, even though an exception in the rule may exempt it
from one or more of the rule's requirements. Thus, according to the
commenter, if the facility is not required to comply with the standards
for spray painting under this final rule, it is also not subject to
subpart HHHHHH.
Response: We agree with the commenter's analysis. As noted above,
facilities in one of the nine area source categories subject to this
final rule are not subject to the miscellaneous coating requirements of
the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations
Sources NESHAP (subpart HHHHHH) because it is stated as such in the
subpart HHHHHH rule. In addition, if facilities in one of the nine area
source categories subject to this final rule use paints that do not
contain MFHAP, they are not subject to the painting requirements in
this final rule. The fact that subpart HHHHHH also has the same MFHAP
criteria for determining applicability of that rule's painting
requirements is not relevant to the applicability question.
Comment: One commenter stated that the mass balance necessary to
determine the amount of PM emissions from forging operations which
escape the building is not feasible. They suggested that the forging
industry should not be included in the standard as a result.
Response: For forging operations, the only emissions measurement
necessary is for determination of area source status for the facility
as a whole, which is in terms of HAP emissions and not PM. Further, no
mass balances are required for PM or MFHAP emissions from any affected
sources covered by the rule, including forging facilities.
Comment: Several commenters requested that maintenance activities,
and research and development operations be excluded from the rule.
Specifically, two commenters recommended welding and machining/grinding
performed for maintenance should be excluded, and stick welding
performed for maintenance was specifically mentioned in another
instance. Another commenter requested that the fabrication of unique
pieces of process equipment or materials handling equipment be
excluded. One of the commenters also requested an exemption for
research and development operations. Another requested an exemption for
quality assurance/quality control operations and training centers.
Alternatively, they requested that training centers be added to the
definition of research and laboratory activities. They claimed that
this exemption is necessary to cover trade schools and other academic
centers of learning, as well as industrial training facilities, many of
which will have to intensify their operations solely as a result of
this rule's training requirements.
Related to these comments, two commenters requested changes to the
definition of ``facility maintenance''. One commenter requested that
the definition from the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface
Coating Operations NESHAP be used, specifically that the following
phrase: ``Facility maintenance includes the application of coatings to
stationary structures or their appurtenances at the site of
installation, to portable buildings at the site of installation, to
pavements, or to curbs.'' Another commenter proposed that EPA revise
the definition of ``facility maintenance'' to clarify that
infrastructure includes process and control equipment.
Response: Research and laboratory facilities, equipment repair
operations, and facility maintenance were excluded from the proposed
rule because emissions from these activities were not part of the 1990
inventory. Specifically, Sec. 63.11514(e) of Sec. 63.11514, ``Am I
subject to this subpart?'', states: ``This
[[Page 42988]]
subpart does not apply to research or laboratory facilities, as defined
in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA.'' Additionally, Sec. 63.11514(f)
states: ``This subpart does not apply to tool or equipment repair
operations, or facility maintenance as defined in Sec. 63.11522,
``What definitions apply to this subpart?''. We received no adverse
comment regarding whether the nine listed area source categories
included these activities, and we therefore did not make changes to
this final rule.
We agree with the commenter that it is appropriate to also exclude
quality control activities since, based on reasonable assumptions, we
believe that emissions from these activities were not part of the 1990
inventory. Therefore this final rule clarifies that the emission
control requirements do not apply to these activities. We have also
added a definition of quality control activities that is based on the
definition in the Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations Sources NESHAP (subpart HHHHHH).
With regard to the definition of facility maintenance, the language
regarding stationary structures or appurtenances was already in the
proposed rule. We did clarify that facility maintenance includes work
on process and control equipment.
Finally, we did not add an exclusion for training centers as the
commenter suggested, nor did we add ``training center'' into the
definition of research and development activities. While the commenter
is correct that the requirements of this rule will result in increased
training needs, the examples that they provided (trade schools,
academic centers of learning, industrial training facilities) would not
be subject to this rule as they are not in one of the nine area source
categories covered, since their primary business is not in the
fabrication or finishing of metal products.
Comment: Two commenters recommended the addition of language that
EPA has included in several other rules to prevent surface coating
operations on military installations from being subject to multiple
rules.
Response: While the operations covered by the rule may be performed
at military installations, the applicability of the rule is specific to
the nine metal fabrication area source categories, as specified in
Sec. 63.11514, ``Am I subject to this subpart?''. In order to make
this clear with regard to military operations, paragraphs have been
added to Sec. 63.11514 that specify that this subpart does not apply
to military operations or the production of military munitions. In
addition, consistent with subpart HHHHHH, we have also clarified that
these provisions do not apply to NASA and National Nuclear Security
facilities.
Comment: Two commenters requested clarification that although their
facilities may perform some metal fabrication and finishing operations,
since their facilities are not primarily engaged in any of the nine
source categories identified in the rule, they are not subject to the
provisions of the rule.
Response: The commenter is correct. If the primary activities of
their facilities do not place them in one of the identified source
categories, they are not subject to the rule. To clarify this issue, we
have added a definition to the rule for ``primarily engaged'', as
follows: ``Primarily engaged means the manufacturing, fabricating, or
forging of one or more products listed in one of the nine metal
fabrication and finishing source categories described in Table 1,
``Description of Source Categories Affected by this Subpart,''
represents at least 50 percent of the production at a facility, where
production quantities are established by the volume, linear foot,
square foot, or other value suited to the specific industry.'' This
definition is consistent with the descriptions provided above in
section I.A, ``Does this action apply to me?''. It is also consistent
with the basis of the listing of the source categories in the 1990 air
toxics inventory.
Comment: Several commenters opposed the requirements in the
proposed rule because they felt these requirements were not justified
by the environmental benefits. One commenter questioned the
justification for the rule, stating that the imposition of significant
costs for additional control, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
obligations, with no corresponding environmental benefit is unwarranted
and unduly burdensome. Similarly, another commenter stated that the
proposed NESHAP creates an unjustifiable administrative burden for many
manufacturers, disproportionately burdening smaller operations that
would have de minimis emissions. According to the commenters, small
businesses which have never before been subject to a NESHAP would be
required to submit notifications, reports, and keep records needed to
demonstrate compliance with the rule. These commenters believe that EPA
should not require small businesses to comply with such administrative
requirements because of the negligible risk they believe are posed by
these small businesses with marginal emissions. Still another commenter
opposed the proposed rule because they believed it would further
undermine the climate of business certainty necessary for manufacturers
to comply with rational federal regulations that balance economic
growth and environmental protection. The commenter said that EPA seeks
to impose a real compliance burden that will achieve no clear
environmental objective.
Several commenters recommended that EPA consider de minimis
exemptions or thresholds for small operations or operations emitting
very small amounts of MFHAP which would be heavily impacted by the
rule, but result in only small emissions reductions. Two commenters
specifically requested exclusions of machining and grinding operations,
and operations which are already controlled.
Response: These nine metal fabrication and finishing area source
categories are area source categories that are needed to meet the CAA
section 112(c)(3) requirement that we subject to regulation the area
source categories representing 90 percent of the emissions of cadmium,
chromium, lead, manganese and nickel. See section 112(c)(3). We
recognize that these nine metal fabrication and finishing area source
categories are comprised of a large number of relatively small
facilities. Although area sources individually may be considered low-
emitting sources, collectively, they are not. The commenters'
suggestions do not take into account our requirement under section
112(c)(3). As discussed above, we previously determined that we need
these nine area source categories to fulfill EPA's obligation under
this requirement, which provides that EPA regulate area sources
accounting for 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP.
However, in developing this final rule, we attempted to further
reduce the burden, especially on small facilities, while ensuring that
this final rule includes sufficient requirements for ensuring
compliance. We have incorporated the following changes in this final
rule to reduce the burden: Reducing the number of operations that are
required to do monitoring from five to two operations (if present);
further reducing the requirement for monitoring by excluding from the
monitoring requirement any facility with welding operations that use
less than 2,000 pounds per year of welding rod containing MFHAP;
reducing the frequency of monitoring to quarterly for affected
operations that do not have visible emissions or opacity exceedences;
specifying that this final rule does not apply to material that
contains MFHAP in quantities less than
[[Page 42989]]
0.1 percent for carcinogens (which includes cadmium, chromium, nickel,
and lead), or less than 1.0 percent for carcinogens (which includes
manganese). In addition, we are planning various outreach activities
specifically for this industry to help affected facilities comply with
this final rule to further reduce the overall burden.
Comment: The criteria in Sec. 63.11514, ``Am I subject to this
subpart?'', specifically paragraph Sec. 63.11514(a), states that you
are subject to this subpart ``if you own or operate an area source of
MFHAP.'' The commenter indicated that this implies that facilities
within the scope of the proposed rule could have emissions other than
MFHAP. Since there is no limitation on the size of sources subject to
the proposed rule, the proposed language leaves open the possibility
that a major source of HAP, but not of MFHAP, could be subject to the
rule if the MFHAP emissions do not exceed the major source threshold.
Response: We acknowledge the awkward wording referred to by the
commenter and have made changes to make it clear that the regulation
applies to sources that are area sources for HAP.
Comment: One commenter suggested that in determining the
applicability of the proposed rule, a source should only be considered
to be engaged in metal fabrication or finishing operations if it
manufactures a finished and assembled product. They suggested that
rather than simply referencing applicable source categories and
included NAICS codes, ``metal fabrication or finishing source
categories'' should be unambiguously defined as ``operations described
in Table 1 to this subpart that are assembly operations that purchase
cast metal parts (no casting on site), perform various finishing
operations, and then assemble their products, with the exception of
iron and steel forging.''
Response: While we appreciate the commenter's attempt to further
clarify the applicability provisions of the rule, we do not believe
that this language captures the basis of the listing of the source
categories in the 1990 inventory as do the descriptions in Table 1 of
the proposed and final rules. Therefore, we have declined to
incorporate the commenter's suggested language in our definitions.
While some of the activities described in Table 1 do produce a finished
and assembled product, some of them do not. However, as a result of
other comments, we have revised the description of affected sources to
only include facilities that are ``primarily engaged'' in the indicated
activities, as discussed above. We believe that this change should
sufficiently clarify the applicability of this final rule.
Comment: One commenter stated that his organization, which
represents a subset of the Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing
source category, namely, ``Structural Steel Fabricators in Non-urban,
Non-stainless, Non-galvanizing Fully-enclosed Shop (NAICS 332312),''
should be excluded from this rule because their products are covered by
permit under the Architectural Surface Coating rule under the CAA.
Also, the spray paint booths or spray rooms required by this final rule
are infeasible and cost-prohibitive, and the VOHAP calculations are
inapplicable and unmanageable compared to previous EPA approaches to
calculating VOHAP content of paints. In addition, the commenter stated
that this subset of the source category is not like the other
categories, because facilities in NAICS 332312 only do some of the
operations regulated in the proposed rule and some operations do not
use or emit the MFHAP. Therefore, this source category should be
separately regulated and not included with the other eight source
categories in this rule.
Response: In regard to the conflict of this rule alleged by the
commenter with EPA's National VOC Emission Standards for Architectural
Coatings (40 CFR part 59, subpart D), we clarify for the commenter that
subpart D controls VOC emissions, as per CAA section 183(e), and only
affects manufacturers, distributors, and importers of architectural
coatings; users of the architectural coating products, therefore, are
not regulated entities under CAA section 183(e). Subpart D also covers
coatings intended for field application rather than coatings intended
for shop or factory application. Therefore, the commenter is incorrect
that this rule is in conflict with subpart D. Since this final rule
removes the standards for VOHAP from spray painting operations, the
issues raised with regard to VOHAP calculations are no longer relevant.
To address this and other commenters' concerns regarding the burden
of compliance, we have revised this final rule so that if facilities do
not emit or use materials containing MFHAP above specified levels,
i.e., greater than or equal to 0.1 percent cadmium, chromium, lead, or
nickel by weight (of the metal), or 1 percent manganese by weight (of
the metal), then the requirements of this final rule do not apply. We
have also reduced the monitoring requirement in this final rule so that
only two types of operations will need to do monitoring, as compared to
the previous five operations in the proposed rule: (1) Abrasive
blasting with MFHAP performed on objects greater than 8 feet, and (2)
welding operations performed with annual use of welding rod with MFHAP
greater than or equal to 2,000 pounds. Under this final rule, affected
facilities with annual use of welding rod with MFHAP less than 2,000
pounds are not subject to the visible emissions monitoring
requirements.
In addition, we found through other comments we received that there
is a unique feature of the facilities in the Fabricated Structural
Metal Manufacturing source category (NAICS 332312), as the commenter
has also noted, in regard to spray painting small objects less than or
equal to 15 feet along with large objects greater than 15 feet in open
areas and not enclosed in spray booths or spray rooms, as discussed
below (under section V.E.4, Management Practices for MFHAP Control for
Painting). Therefore, we have revised this rule to accommodate this
process difference and removed the spray booth requirement.
Finally, based on our research for this rule that included site
visits, surveys, and contacts with industry representatives, we believe
that the operations in all the nine metal fabrication and finishing
source categories are sufficiently similar to justify including all
nine source categories in one rule, if the above-cited exception that
accommodates the one significant difference is included.
B. Compliance Dates
Comment: Four commenters disagreed with the two-year compliance
timeframe. They suggested that because of the large number of sources
that state or local permitting agencies will need to identify and
contact (many of whom are small businesses), and the potential need for
sources to train painters and install necessary equipment, that three
years is more typical and more appropriate.
Response: We agree with the commenters' reasoning, and have
adjusted the compliance date accordingly.
Comment: One commenter from a regulatory assistance organization
noted that the scheduling of the promulgation and compliance dates of
this rule will make it difficult for them to provide outreach while
commenting on the other EPA area source rules proposed or in
development. They recommended adjusting the notification dates and
other dates in this rule to avoid this conflict.
Response: While we appreciate the difficulty the commenter has in
[[Page 42990]]
managing these various activities, we have little latitude in shifting
the promulgation date of this final rule since it is mandated by a
court order. The notification and other dates in this rule are guided
by the part 63 General Provisions. We have extended the compliance
period to three years in this final rule to provide sufficient
opportunity for facilities and organizations to prepare for compliance.
We expect that this additional time will provide some relief to the
commenter in their needs as well.
Comment: One commenter suggested that because of the necessity of
arranging training, it will be very difficult for small facilities with
painting operations to meet the compliance deadlines.
Response: The proposed rule would have required that, for existing
sources, training would be completed by September 3, 2008. Upon
reconsideration, we believe that having this training completed in
advance of the compliance date is not necessary. Therefore, this final
rule requires that training be complete by the compliance date. This
will give facilities three full years to schedule and complete the
training.
Comment: One commenter stated that new affected sources should be
allowed 180 days after startup to demonstrate compliance, rather than
120 days, as proposed, to be consistent with other major and area
source rules.
Response: The commenter is correct in that the notification of
compliance status report is sometimes required by some 40 CFR part 63
major and area source rules to be submitted 180 days after the startup
of new affected sources. However, there are also examples where these
rules require this compliance notification 120 days after startup.
Since there are no source tests that are required for this rule, we do
not feel that an additional 60 days is necessary.
Comment: One commenter stated that there was no compliance deadline
included in the proposed rule for a new affected source that starts up
prior to the publication of this final rule.
Response: The commenter is incorrect. The proposed compliance dates
at Sec. 63.11515 ``What are my compliance dates?'', states: ``[i]f you
start up a new affected source after the date of publication of this
final rule in the Federal Register, you must achieve compliance with
the provisions in this subpart upon startup of your affected source.''
However, this text was incomplete and should have required new sources
to comply with the requirements of this final rule by the date of
publication of this final rule in the Federal Register, or upon start-
up, whichever is later. This language has been corrected in this final
rule.
C. Scope of Rule
Comment: Several comments were received expressing concern about
how the proposed rule applied to the use of MFHAP. First, one commenter
pointed out that the definition of MFHAP in the proposed rule is not
consistent with definition in the proposal preamble. The preamble
referred to MFHAP compounds, while the definition of MFHAP in the rule
only lists the elements. The comments suggested adding ``compounds of''
to the definition.
Two commenters requested clarification that, for spray painting
affected sources, EPA only intended to require the use of a spray booth
and other work practices when the paint being sprayed contains MFHAP.
If a fabricator uses paints containing MFHAP even once, the language of
the regulation might require it to apply the management practices even
when spraying non-MFHAP paints.
Two commenters recommended establishing threshold amounts for MFHAP
in the same manner that the proposed rule did for VOHAP in paints.
Specifically, they stated, for paints, the proposed rule required that
you count each VOHAP that is measured to be present at 0.1 percent by
mass or more for OSHA-defined carcinogens, as specified in 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4), and 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds.
Response: With regard to the definition of MFHAP, it was our intent
that the rule apply to compounds containing these five metals, as noted
by the commenter. Therefore, we have revised the definition of MFHAP in
this final rule to include ``any compound of the following metals:
cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, or nickel, or any of these metals
in the elemental form, with the exception of lead,'' consistent with
the HAP definitions in the CAA (section 112 (b)).
The proposed rule, in Sec. 63.11514(a), ``Am I subject to this
subpart?'', states that ``(y)ou are subject to this subpart if you own
or operate an area source that emits metal fabrication or finishing
metal HAP (MFHAP), defined to be the compounds of cadmium, chromium,
lead, manganese, and nickel, or an area source that emits VOHAP from
spray painting operations, which performs metal fabrication or
finishing operations in one of the nine source categories listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (9) of this section.'' As discussed above, we
have removed the requirements related to VOHAP. Therefore, the affected
sources are equipment and activities necessary to perform the
designated operations (abrasive blasting, machining, dry grinding and
polishing, spray painting, and welding) which use or have the potential
to emit MFHAP. It is our intent that any of these operations that ever
use materials containing MFHAP, or that have the potential to ever emit
MFHAP, are affected sources.
However, we have made a modification to the affected source
definition in Sec. 63.11514(b), ``Am I subject to this subpart?'', to
add the concept of the use of ``materials containing MFHAP'', as
opposed to just ``MFHAP.'' We agree with the recommendation that OSHA-
based thresholds are appropriate for defining whether a material
``contains'' MFHAP, since we believe that materials that contain MFHAP
below these thresholds contain such very small amounts of HAP that they
were not included in the 1990 inventory. For example, Sec.
63.11514(b)(2) of this final rule states: ``A machining affected source
is the collection of all equipment and activities necessary to perform
machining operations that uses materials containing MFHAP* * *,'' where
``material containing MFHAP'' is defined in Sec. 63.11522, ``What
definitions apply to this subpart?'', to be: ``material that contains
cadmium, chromium, lead, or nickel in amounts greater than or equal to
0.1 percent by weight (as the metal), or contains manganese in amounts
greater than or equal to 1.0 percent by weight (as the metal), as shown
in formulation data provided by the manufacturer or supplier, such as
the Material Safety Data Sheet for the material.''
In addition, when operations are occurring at an affected source
that does not use any materials containing MFHAP, we do not believe
that the management practices to minimize MFHAP emissions need to be
followed. While the commenter only raised this issue with respect to
painting, we believe that it should be universally applicable to all
types of affected sources. Therefore, we have made changes in Sec.
63.11516, ``What are my standards and management practices,'' of this
final rule to make it clear that these requirements apply only when
materials containing MFHAP are being used. For example, Sec.
63.11516(a) of this final rule states the following: ``Dry abrasive
blasting standards. If you own or operate a new or existing dry
abrasive blasting affected source you must comply with the requirements
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, as applicable, for
each dry
[[Page 42991]]
abrasive blasting operation that uses materials that contain MFHAP or
have the potential to emit MFHAP. These requirements do not apply when
abrasive blasting operations are being performed that do not use any
materials containing MFHAP and do not have the potential to emit
MFHAP.''
Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA specify hexavalent
chromium instead of using the general term ``chromium.'' The general
term ``chromium'' includes trivalent chromium, which is an important
material used in small quantities for achieving certain metallic and
pearlescent finishes; it has a relatively benign nature as compared to
hexavalent chromium. Also, EPA used hexavalent chromium in their Urban
HAP analysis in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy instead of
total chromium.
Response: The CAA specifically lists ``chromium compounds'' as a
hazardous air pollutant. In our original listing for the Urban Air
Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38706, July 19, 1999), we listed ``chromium
compounds'' as one of the Urban HAP targeted for the Integrated Urban
Air Toxics Strategy. CAA section 112(c)(3) requires us to list source
categories accounting for 90 percent of the emissions of each of the
listed urban HAP, including chromium compounds. As explained above, we
need the nine source categories at issue here to reach the 90 percent
requirement in CAA section 112(c)(3) for chromium compounds.
The commenter is correct that trivalent chromium is relatively
benign as compared to hexavalent chromium. The reason why we used
hexavalent chromium in the Urban HAP analysis in the Integrated Urban
Air Toxics Strategy was to prioritize and rank the sources of Urban HAP
area source categories for regulation, for the exact reason that the
commenter states. However, we always intended to use chromium compounds
as the regulated pollutant since the listing of the categories was
based on emissions of chromium compounds, not hexavalent chromium. Many
of our control strategies for chromium and other metal HAP involve the
use of PM as a surrogate for chromium and other metal HAP. These PM
control strategies control all chromium compounds along with PM and
other metal HAP, therefore the form of chromium would not change the
type of PM control strategy we choose. The coating control strategies
in this rule either control PM and other metal HAP along with chromium
(for the case of PM paint booth filters required for spray painting) or
reduce the total amount of coating used (and therefore the amount of PM
and other metal HAP), through the use of HVLP spray technology,
training, and management practices.
In summary, although we recognize the differences in the health
effects of hexavalent and trivalent chromium, we are required to
regulate chromium compounds from the nine source categories at issue in
this rule.
Comment: Two commenters questioned whether the HAP reduction
warrants the regulation. One commenter stated that MFHAP are present
only in small amounts at the facilities it represents. Little PM leaves
the building perimeters, and an even smaller percentage is MFHAP.
Response: As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule and
reiterated above, section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to
identify at least 30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area
sources, pose the greatest threat to public health in urban areas.
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 determined that these nine metal fabrication and
finishing area source categories are among the area source categories
that we need to meet the section 112(c)(3) requirement to regulate area
source categories representing 90 percent of the emissions of cadmium,
chromium, lead, manganese and nickel. See section 112(c)(3).
We recognize that these metal fabrication area source categories
are comprised of a large number of relatively small facilities.
Although area sources individually may be considered low-emitting
sources, collectively, they are not; therefore, we are issuing
regulations for these source categories. However, as discussed above,
we have attempted to minimize the burden on the affected facilities,
especially small businesses, and have revised the requirements further
in this final rule to further reduce the burden to small facilities.
We disagree with the commenter's statement that this rule will
result in no environmental benefit. This final rule will help to ensure
that future emissions will be limited to the same levels currently
achieved. If the source categories were not regulated, as suggested by
the commenter, there would be no such limit of future emissions from
new facilities in the nine metal fabrication and finishing area source
categories.
Comment: One commenter noted that in Sec. 63.11514(b)(4), ``Am I
subject to this subpart?'', the paragraph defining a spray painting
operation includes those using paints containing VOHAP or MFHAP. The
commenter stated that the standards outlined in Sec. 63.11516(d) and
(e), ``What are my standards and management practices?'', apply to all
spray painting affected sources and thus do not specifically apply to
sources that only emit MFHAP or VOHAP. The commenter recommended that
the standards be rephrased so that paragraph (d) specifically states
that it applies to sources of MFHAP and paragraph (e) to sources of
VOHAP. Another commenter noted an error wherein Sec. 63.11516(d)
states: ``If you own or operate a new or existing spray painting
affected source as defined in Sec. 63.11522, ``What definitions apply
to this subpart?''. However, the definition of ``spray painting
affected source'' is in Sec. 63.11514(b)(4), ``Am I subject to this
subpart?'', not in the ``Definitions'' section (Sec. 63.11522).
Response: The commenters are correct, in that the provisions in
Sec. 63.11516(d) and (e), ``What are my standards and management
practices?'', are intended to apply only to operations using paints
containing MFHAP. The rule text has been revised to reflect this. The
standards for VOHAP from spray painting operations have been removed
from this final rule.
D. Impacts of Rule
Comment: Two commenters suggested that the proposed rule will
potentially affect many more small facilities than estimated by EPA.
One commenter noted that ``InfoUSA'' (http://www.infousa.com) reports
over 37,000 facilities with fewer than 100 employees and over 17,000
with fewer than 10 employees in the SIC codes corresponding to the Nine
Metal Fabrication and Finishing Area Source Categories, versus the
5,800 facilities estimated in the proposal preamble. Another commenter
stated that there are over 4,000 metal fabrication sources in Texas
alone.
Response: Our estimate of the total number of affected facilities,
and the number of small businesses, was based on the most recently
available U.S. Economic Census (2002). We were able to obtain similar
facility numbers using the cited web site, but have no explanation for
the discrepancy between these two respected sources of information.
However, we stand by the Census, which has the sole purpose of
providing U.S. economic information, to obtain an estimate of the
number of facilities in these source categories.
Comment: One commenter notes that the preamble states that 5,800
sources
[[Page 42992]]
will be regulated by this rule, of which 90 percent are small
businesses. They say this is inequitable and places a considerable
burden on small businesses.
Response: As explained above, we need to regulate these nine metal
fabrication and finishing area source categories to meet the 90 percent
requirement in section 112(c)(3) for emissions of cadmium, chromium,
lead, manganese, and nickel. In developing the proposed rule, we
attempted to minimize the burden on small businesses, while ensuring
that the rule includes sufficient requirements for ensuring compliance.
This final rule imposes no testing requirements, and we have eliminated
the requirement to conduct visual emissions monitoring for some types
of sources from that which was required in the proposed rule. With
respect to recordkeeping, our understanding is that the required
records are already maintained at most facilities as part of routine
procedures. Therefore, the recordkeeping requirements do not represent
any significant burden on these facilities.
Comment: Seven commenters stated that the estimated costs of the
proposed rule are underestimated, and that $1,120 initially and $735
annually is not reflective of the actual cost to small businesses. They
argue that the total number of labor hours is also not reflective of
the time needed by small businesses to comply. According to the
commenters, the number of hours needed to comply with the paperwork,
training, monitoring and installation of upgraded equipment will exceed
80 hours the first year. They stated their belief that cost estimates
using EPA's initial cost and hours pro-rated, will be over $3,700 per
facility. According to the commenters, this does not include any
capital costs needed to comply with the NESHAP and no consideration has
been given to non-fiscal resources. The commenters argued that most
companies will require outside consulting assistance to meet
compliance, training, and record-keeping requirements. One commenter
specifically mentioned the costs of obtaining Method 9 certification
(and annual re-certification) for employees.
Response: We based those reporting and recordkeeping estimates of
the burden on past experience with similar rules, and believe that they
are reasonable. As noted in response to other comments, we have made
several changes to this final rule to decrease the burden on all
affected facilities. For example, we have eliminated the requirement to
conduct visual emission observations from all sources except large
welding operations and uncontrolled blasting operations on objects
greater than 8 feet in any dimension. No capital costs are incurred as
a result of this rule since all facilities are currently using the
MFHAP control methods that the rule requires. Also, Method 9 is only
required if an exceedence of Method 22 occurs twice and we do not
expect this to occur for most facilities.
E. Management Practices
1. General
Comment: The management practices in the proposed rule for abrasive
blasting, machining, and dry grinding and polishing included the
requirement that affected sources ``must keep work areas free of excess
MFHAP material by sweeping or vacuuming dust once per day, once per
shift, or once per operation, as needed depending on the severity of
dust generation.'' Several commenters disagreed with these
requirements. One commenter suggested that leaving dust on the floor
may produce less airborne dust than frequent sweeping, which renders
the dust airborne again. They also suggested that there may be worker
safety issues related to sweeping in unsafe areas. Another commenter
stated that the proposed rule would overlap with existing Federal and
state programs and with jurisdiction of OSHA. They stated that by
proposing to mandate that manufacturers ``keep work areas free of
excess dust by regular sweeping or vacuuming to control the
accumulation of dust and other particles,'' and further giving a
regulatory definition for what constitutes ``regular vacuuming,'' EPA
complicates manufacturers' efforts to comply with various federal and
state worker safety regulations, but also mandates practices that most
business owners either already undertake pursuant to existing law, and/
or to maximize the health of their works. They stated their belief that
this increases or duplicates regulatory burdens and best practices and
hampers operational efficiency within manufacturing facilities.
Further, this commenter said that mandating the frequency with which
metal operations must sweep the floor of their factories will not help
EPA fulfill its mandate to protect environmental and public health,
since manufacturers already comply with these practices.
While these comments are related to the sweeping requirements for
all sources, other commenters had more specific criticisms of these
requirements as applied to outdoor blasting. These commenters noted
that the requirements for sweeping and enclosure of storage areas and
conveyors for outdoor abrasive blasting seem inappropriate for outdoor
operations which are not themselves enclosed, and where the abrasive
falls to the ground under the work pieces. They stated that making
outdoor blasting operations ``clear and enclose as you go'' would be
cost prohibitive.
These commenters provided a variety of suggestions. Some commenters
requested removal of these requirements. Another commenter suggested
that the term ``if possible'' be added to the management practice of
sweeping outdoor areas, as they pointed out that an affected source may
not be able to sweep or vacuum over unpaved surfaces or rock. One
commenter said that EPA should reexamine the proposal and attempt to
pinpoint real, potential gaps that may exist under existing regulatory
programs rather than issue regulations that will cause overlaps and
potential confusion, thereby undermining environmental compliance and
industrial productivity. Finally, a commenter suggested a requirement
for sweeping on a frequency determined by facility managers considering
safety and emissions.
Response: The primary purpose of the management practices described
by the commenters is to minimize the potential for fugitive emissions
that occur due to the ``stirring up'' of MFHAP dust in the work area.
We recognize that these practices would likely have a larger beneficial
effect on the ambient air inside the facility than for outside the
plant boundaries. We also recognize that these practices are commonly
employed at these facilities to reduce worker exposure to these dusts,
hence the inclusion of these practices as ``generally available control
technology.'' Our intention was to have these requirements work in
concert with established plant practices and OSHA requirements.
However, we understand how conflicts could result from the very
prescriptive proposed requirements. We also recognize there could be
situations where a requirement to sweep at least once per day could be
more detrimental than beneficial. We do, however, continue to believe
that it is important that owners and operators of these operations
perform routine practices to reduce the possibility of fugitive MFHAP
emissions due to accumulated dust in these work areas. Therefore, we
did not take the one commenter's suggestion to completely eliminate
these requirements. Rather, we have incorporated the recommendation of
another commenter to make these sweeping/vacuuming requirements at
[[Page 42993]]
the discretion of the owner or operator of the affected source.
Specifically, this final rule requires that affected sources ``must
take measures necessary to minimize excess dust to reduce emissions.''
This general requirement also applies to blasting that is conducted
outdoors or indoors.
2. Abrasive Blasting
Comment: One commenter suggested that EPA revise Sec. 63.11516(a),
``What are my standards and management practices?'', to take into
account all possible abrasive blasting activities. They indicated that
the proposed paragraph Sec. 63.11516(a)(1) applied to dry blasting
objects less than or equal to 8 feet in totally enclosed and unvented
blast chambers, paragraph Sec. 63.11516(a)(2) applied to dry blasting
objects less than or equal to 8 feet in vented enclosures, and
paragraph Sec. 63.11516(a)(3) applied to dry blasting objects greater
than 8 feet. They concluded that it appeared that EPA meant to draft
this section so that paragraph (a)(3) applied to any size objects dry
blasted outdoors. Also, they pointed out that there were no regulations
that applied to dry blasting objects greater than 8 feet indoors. In
this regard, the commenter stated that there appeared to be a
typographical error in the second sentence of paragraph (a)(2). They
indicated that it should be re-written to the following: ``As an
alternative, dry abrasive blasting operations for which the items to be
blasted are equal to or less than 8 feet (2.4 meters) in any dimension,
may be performed outdoors, subject to the requirements in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section.''
Response: Paragraph Sec. 63.11516(a)(1), ``What are my standards
and management practices?'', is specific to dry blasting of objects in
totally enclosed and unvented blast chambers. While we would not expect
that large objects would ever be blasted in a totally enclosed and
unvented blast chamber, these provisions are applicable to any
situation where an object is blasted in such a blast chamber.
Therefore, we have corrected the title of the section in this final
rule to state: ``Standards for dry abrasive blasting performed in
enclosed and unvented blast chambers.''
The proposed standard in Sec. 63.11516(a)(2), ``What are my
standards and management practices?'', applied to blasting operations
which have vents allowing any air or blast material to escape. This
provision of the proposed rule was intended to encompass all blasting
performed in vented blasting chambers, regardless of the size of the
object being blasted. Therefore, the size of the material blasted has
been removed from the title of the provision in this final rule so that
the rule applies to objects of any size, as long as the objects are
blasted in chambers vented to a filtration control device.
The only blasting operations (excluding those in enclosed unvented
chambers) that may not be subject to the revised provisions of Sec.
63.11516(a)(2), ``What are my standards and management practices?'' in
this final rule, are operations where objects greater than 8 feet are
being blasted. These operations may be performed indoors or outdoors,
without a filtration control device. These operations are subject to
the management practices in paragraph Sec. 63.11516(a)(3). They are
also subject to visual emissions testing requirements. In other words,
we consider that the differences in the type of the process where large
(i.e., greater than 8 feet) objects are being blasted to warrant
separate requirements for situations where blast chambers, vented or
unvented, cannot be used.
Therefore, in this final rule, the title of paragraph Sec.
63.11516(a)(1), ``What are my standards and management practices?'',
has been changed to ``Standards for dry abrasive blasting performed in
totally enclosed and unvented blast chambers.'' Also, the title of
paragraph Sec. 63.11516(a)(2) has been changed to ``Standards for dry
abrasive blasting performed in vented enclosures''. Paragraph Sec.
63.11516(a)(3), ``Standards for dry abrasive blasting of objects
greater than 8 feet in any one dimension'' has been amended to address
blasting of objects greater than 8 feet in any one dimension, either
indoors or outdoors, with operations performed in both blasting
locations required to perform management practices and visible
emissions monitoring.
Comment: One commenter questioned the mention of silica sand in the
rule as an acceptable abrasive, noting OSHA regulations related to
worker exposure to silicon dioxide (SiO2) and dangers of
silicosis.
Response: The commenter is mistaken that we recommend the use of
sand or silica. The intent of this portion of the proposed rule was
explicitly to limit emission of MFHAP by minimizing the use of high-PM
generating blast media, such as sand. In this final rule, in Sec.
63.11516 (a)(3)(i)(E), ``What are my standards and management
practices?'', we say in this regard: ``Whenever practicable, you must
switch from high PM-emitting blast media (e.g., sand) to low PM-
emitting blast media (e.g., crushed glass, specular hematite, steel
shot, aluminum oxide), where PM is a surrogate for MFHAP.''
Comment: One commenter asked that the proposed rule text be
clarified to specify that the requirement in Sec.
63.11516(a)(2)(ii)(B), ``What are my standards and management
practices?'', for enclosure of conveyors only applies to conveyors used
to transport blast media and debris, not those carrying the material to
be blasted. Other commenters noted that the requirements for enclosure
of storage areas and conveyors for outdoor abrasive blasting seemed
inappropriate for outdoor operations which are not themselves enclosed,
and they requested removal of these requirements.
Response: We agree with these comments and have revised the
requirements in this final rule accordingly.
Comment: One commenter noted that Sec. 63.11516(a)(3)(i)(E),
``What are my standards and management practices?'', states that no dry
abrasive blasting shall |
