[Federal Register: January 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 6)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1737-1768]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09ja08-12]
[[Page 1737]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources;
Final Rule
[[Page 1738]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0526; FRL-8508-6]
RIN 2060-AN21
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint
Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for area sources engaged in paint
stripping, surface coating of motor vehicles and mobile equipment, and
miscellaneous surface coating operations. EPA has listed ``Paint
Stripping,'' ``Plastic Parts and Products (Surface Coating),'' and
``Autobody Refinishing Paint Shops'' as area sources of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) that contribute to the risk to public health in urban
areas under the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. This final rule
includes emissions standards that reflect the generally available
control technology or management practices in each of these area source
categories. ``Plastic Parts and Products (Surface Coating)'' has been
renamed ``Miscellaneous Surface Coating,'' and ``Autobody Refinishing
Paint Shops'' has been renamed ``Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment
Surface Coating'' to more accurately reflect the scope of these source
categories.
DATES: This final rule is effective on January 9, 2008. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 9,
2008.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0526. All documents in the docket are
listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov.
Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information 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 EPA Docket Center,
Public Reading Room, 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: For technical information concerning
the paint stripping standards, contact Mr. Warren Johnson, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-5124, or e-mail at Johnson.warren@epa.gov.
For technical information concerning the surface coating standards,
contact Ms. Kim Teal, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce
Group (E143-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-5580, or e-
mail at teal.kim@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline
The information presented 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 Final Area Source Standards
III. Summary of Final Rule
A. Applicability
B. Compliance Dates
C. Requirements for Paint Stripping Operations
D. Surface Coating Requirements
E. Notifications, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
A. Applicability
B. Compliance Dates
C. Requirements for Paint Stripping Operations
D. Requirements for Surface Coating Operations
E. Notifications, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
A. Applicability
B. Compliance date
C. Requirements for Paint Stripping Operations
D. Authority to Regulate Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations
E. Basis of Surface Coating Standards
F. Training Requirements
G. Spray Gun Requirements
H. Spray Booths
I. Spray Booth Filters
J. Spray Gun Washers
K. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Compliance
L. Cost and Economic Impacts
VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
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?
Categories and entities potentially affected by the rule are paint
stripping operations using methylene chloride (MeCl)-containing paint
strippers, motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating
operations, and miscellaneous surface coating operations located at
area sources. An area source is defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 112(a) as any stationary source of HAP that is not a major
source, and 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.
For the purposes of this rule, paint stripping operations are those
that perform paint stripping using MeCl for the removal of dried paint
(including, but not limited to, paint, enamel, varnish, shellac, and
lacquer) from wood, metal, plastic, and other substrates at area
sources as either:
(1) an independent activity where paint stripping is the principal
activity at the source, or
(2) an activity incidental to the principal activity (e.g., surface
coating, inspection, maintenance, etc.) at the source.
[[Page 1739]]
For co-located operations, EPA considers paint stripping activities
that use one ton or less to be incidental to the principal activity and
those using more than one ton to be performing paint stripping as a
principal activity.
Motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating operations
involve the spray application of coatings at area sources to
automobiles, light trucks, heavy duty trucks, buses, construction
equipment, self-propelled vehicles and equipment that may be drawn and/
or driven on a roadway.
Miscellaneous surface coating operations are those that involve the
spray application of coatings that contain compounds of chromium (Cr),
lead (Pb), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), or cadmium (Cd), herein after
referred to as target HAP, to miscellaneous parts and/or products made
of metal or plastic, or combinations of metal and plastic.
In general, the facilities and entities potentially affected by
some or all of the rule are covered under the North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes listed in the following table.
However, facilities classified under other NAICS codes may be subject
to the standards if they meet the applicability criteria.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category NAICS potentially regulated
entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace Equipment........... 336413, 336414, Aircraft engines,
336415, 54171. aircraft parts,
aerospace ground
equipment.
Automobiles and Automobile 336111, 336211, Engine parts, vehicle
Parts. 336312, 33632, parts and
33633, 33634, accessories, brakes,
33637, 336399, axles, etc. Motor
441110, 441120, vehicle body
811121. manufacturing and
automobile assembly
plants. New and used
car dealers.
Automotive body,
paint, and interior
repair and
maintenance.
Chemical Manufacturing and 325110, 325120, Petrochemicals,
Product Preparation. 325131, 325188, Industrial Gases,
325192, 325193, Inorganic Dyes and
325199, 325998. Pigments, Basic
Inorganic and
Organic Chemicals,
Cyclic Crude and
Intermediates, Ethyl
Alcohol,
Miscellaneous
Chemical Production
and Preparation.
Extruded Aluminum............. 331316, 331524, Extruded aluminum,
332321, 332323. architectural
components, coils,
rod, and tubes.
Government.................... Not Applicable... Government entities,
besides Department
of Defense, that
maintain vehicles,
such as school
buses, police and
emergency vehicles,
transit buses, or
highway maintenance
vehicles.
Heavy Equipment............... 33312, 333611.... Tractors, earth
moving machinery.
Job Shops..................... 332722, 332813, Manufacturing
332991, 334119, industries not
336413, 339999. elsewhere classified
(e.g., bezels,
consoles, panels,
lenses).
Large Trucks and Buses........ 33612, 336211.... Large trucks and
buses.
Metal Buildings............... 332311........... Prefabricated metal
buildings, carports,
docks, dwellings,
greenhouses, panels
for buildings.
Metal Containers.............. 33242, 81131, Drums, kegs, pails,
322214, 331513. shipping containers.
Metal Pipe and Foundry........ 331111, 331513, Plate, tube, rods,
33121, 331221, nails, etc.
331511.
Rail Transportation........... 33651, 336611, Brakes, engines,
482111. freight cars,
locomotives.
Recreational Vehicles and 321991, 3369, Mobile Homes.
Other Transportation 331316, 336991, Motorcycles, motor
Equipment. 336211, 336112, homes, semi
336212, 336213, trailers, truck
336214, 336399, trailers.
336999, 33635, Miscellaneous
56121, 8111, transportation
56211. related equipment
and parts. Travel
trailer and camper
manufacturing.
Rubber-to-Metal Products...... 326291, 326299... Engine mounts,
rubberized tank
tread, harmonic
balancers.
Structural Steel.............. 332311, 332312... Joists, railway
bridge sections,
highway bridge
sections.
Waste Treatment, Disposal, and 562211, 562212, Hazardous Waste
Materials Recovery. 562213, 562219, Treatment and
562920. Disposal, Solid
Waste Landfill,
Solid Waste
Combustors and
Incinerators, Other
Nonhazardous Waste
Treatment and
Disposal, Materials
Recovery.
Other Industrial and 211112........... Natural Gas Liquid
Commercial. Extraction.
311942........... Spices and Extracts.
331311........... Alumina Refining.
337214, 811420... Office furniture,
except wood.
Reupholstery and
Furniture Repair.
325211........... Plastics Material
Synthetic Resins,
and Nonvulcanizable
Elastomers.
325510........... Paint and Coating
Manufacturing.
32614, 32615..... Plastic foam products
(e.g., pool floats,
wrestling mats, life
jackets).
326199........... Plastic products not
elsewhere classified
(e.g., name plates,
coin holders,
storage boxes,
license plate
housings, cosmetic
caps, cup holders).
333313........... Office machines.
33422............ Radio and television
broadcasting and
communications
equipment (e.g.,
cellular
telephones).
339111, 339112... Medical equipment and
supplies.
33992............ Sporting and athletic
goods.
33995............ Signs and advertising
specialties.
336612........... Boat building.
713930........... Marinas, including
boat repair yards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the
rule. Many types of entities that perform stripping and/or coating that
are not listed in this table would be potentially affected by the rule.
Additionally, some entities that are classified under the NAICS codes
in the table may not be subject if they are not performing the
operations described in the applicability criteria in Sec. Sec.
63.11169 and 63.11170 of the rule. To determine whether your facility,
company, business, organization, etc., is subject to this action, you
should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. Sec. 63.11169 and
63.11170 of the rule. If you have any
[[Page 1740]]
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
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 the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 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 CAA, judicial review of this final
rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by March 10,
2008. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to the
rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for
public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, 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.
II. Background Information for Final Area Source Standards
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify at least
30 HAP, which, as the result of emissions of area sources, pose the
greatest threat to public health in urban areas. Consistent with this
provision, EPA identified the 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential
health threat in urban areas in 1999. These HAP are referred to as the
``Urban HAP'' as part of the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. See
64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999. 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. EPA listed the source categories that
account for 90 percent of the Urban HAP emissions in the Integrated
Urban Air Toxics Strategy.\1\ Sierra Club sued EPA, alleging a failure
to complete standards for the area source categories listed pursuant to
CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) within the time frame specified by
the statute. See Sierra Club v. Johnson, No. 01-1537, (D.D.C.). On
March 31, 2006, the court issued an order requiring EPA to promulgate
standards under CAA section 112(d) for those area source categories
listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy in 1999, EPA has revised the area source category list
several times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among other things, the order as amended on October 15, 2007,
requires that, by December 15, 2007, EPA complete standards for nine
area source categories. On September 17, 2007, EPA proposed NESHAP for
Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area
Sources. The proposal covered the following three listed area source
categories that were selected to meet the December 15, 2007, deadline:
(1) Paint Stripping, (2) Plastic Parts and Products (Surface Coating),
and (3) Autobody Refinishing Paint Shops. See 72 FR 52958. This final
NESHAP completes the required regulatory action for three area source
categories.
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the Administrator may, in lieu of
standards requiring maximum achievable control technology (MACT) under
section 112(d)(2), elect to promulgate standards or requirements for
area sources ``which provide for the use of generally available control
technologies (GACT) or management practices by such sources to reduce
emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' As explained in the proposed
NESHAP, EPA is setting standards for these area source categories
pursuant to section 112(d)(5). See 72 FR 52958, September 17, 2007.
III. Summary of Final Rule
A. Applicability
We have revised the rule since proposal to clarify the sources to
which it applies. In order to clarify the applicability of the final
rule and the standards that apply, Sec. Sec. 63.11169 and 63.11170 of
the final rule distinguish among the three separate area source
categories: paint stripping, motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface
coating, and miscellaneous surface coating. The rule contains separate
provisions describing the requirements for each category.
The final subpart does not apply to any of the following activities
listed in Sec. 63.11169:
(1) Surface coating or paint stripping performed on site at
installations owned or operated by the Armed Forces of the United
States (including the Coast Guard and the National Guard of any State),
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or the National
Nuclear Security Administration.
(2) Surface coating or paint stripping of military munitions, as
defined in Sec. 63.11180, manufactured by or for the Armed Forces of
the United States (including the Coast Guard and the National Guard of
any State) or equipment directly and exclusively used for the purposes
of transporting military munitions.
(3) Surface coating or paint stripping performed by individuals on
their personal vehicles, possessions, or property, either as a hobby or
for maintenance of their personal vehicles, possessions, or property.
This subpart also does not apply when these operations are performed by
individuals for others without compensation. An individual who spray
applies surface coating of more than two motor vehicles or pieces of
mobile equipment per year is subject to the requirements in this
subpart that pertain to motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface
coating regardless of whether compensation is received.
(4) Surface coating or paint stripping that meets the definition of
``research and laboratory activities'' in Sec. 63.11180 of the final
rule.
(5) Surface coating or paint stripping that meets the definition of
``quality control activities'' in Sec. 63.11180 of the final rule.
(6) Surface coating or paint stripping that is specifically covered
by another area source NESHAP.
Section 63.11170 specifies the operations that are subject to the
final standards. For paint stripping, the final rule applies to you if
you use chemical strippers that contain MeCl to remove dried paint
(including, but not limited to, paint, enamel, varnish, shellac, and
lacquer) from wood, metal, plastic, and other substrates.
The final rule also applies to you if you spray apply coatings to
motor vehicles or mobile equipment for the purposes of finishing or
refinishing, and clarifies that the standards apply to all sources
performing these operations using spray-applied coatings, including
mobile refinishing operations, except those operations that meet the
definition of facility maintenance in Sec. 63.11180. Finally, the rule
applies if you spray apply coatings that contain the target HAP to
plastic or metal parts and products (other than motor vehicles and
mobile equipment), except those operations that meet the definition of
facility maintenance or that are surface coating of a space vehicle. If
you perform miscellaneous surface coating operations, but do not use
any coatings
[[Page 1741]]
that contain the target HAP, the rule does not apply.
The final rule applies to all motor vehicle and mobile equipment
surface coating operations. However, if you are the owner or operator
of a motor vehicle or mobile equipment surface coating operation, you
may petition the Administrator for an exemption from this subpart if
you can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, that you
spray apply no coatings that contain the target HAP. Petitions must
include a description of the coatings that you spray apply and your
certification that you do not spray apply any coatings containing the
target HAP. If circumstances change such that you intend to spray apply
coatings containing the target HAP, you must submit the initial
notification required by 63.11175 and comply with the requirements of
this subpart.
Coatings are considered to contain the target HAP if they contain
any individual target HAP that is an Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogen as specified in 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4) at a concentration greater than 0.1 percent by mass or
greater than 1.0 percent by mass for any other individual target HAP.
For the purpose of determining whether materials you use contain the
target HAP (that is, compounds of chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), manganese
(Mn), nickel (Ni), or cadmium (Cd)), you may rely on formulation data
provided by the manufacturer or supplier, such as the material safety
data sheet (MSDS), as long as it represents each target HAP compound in
the material that is present at 0.1 percent by mass or more for OSHA-
defined carcinogens and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other target
HAP compounds.
The final rule also includes in Sec. 63.11180 definitions of
``administrator,'' ``coating,'' ``facility maintenance,'' ``quality
control activities,'' ``research and laboratory activities,'' ``space
vehicle,'' and ``spray application of coatings'' related to these
applicability provisions.
``Administrator'' means the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency or the State or local agency that is granted
delegation for implementation of this subpart.
``Coating'' is defined as a material spray-applied to a substrate
for decorative, protective, or functional purposes. As specified in the
definition in the final rule, ``coating'' does not include the
following materials:
(1) Decorative, protective, or functional materials that consist
only of protective oils for metal, acids, bases, or any combination of
these substances.
(2) Paper film or plastic film that may be pre-coated with an
adhesive by the film manufacturer.
(3) Adhesives, sealants, maskants, or caulking materials.
(4) Temporary protective coatings, lubricants, or surface
preparation materials.
(5) In-mold coatings that are spray-applied in the manufacture of
reinforced plastic composite parts.
``Facility maintenance'' is defined to include architectural
surface coating activities on stationary structures and process
equipment. It is also defined to include the surface coating of mobile
equipment in the field, such as farming or mining equipment, or mobile
equipment coated at a site where it is used, such as a fork truck
coated at a manufacturing facility. The definition of facility
maintenance specifically excludes surface coating of motor vehicles,
mobile equipment, or items that routinely leave and return to the
facility, such as delivery trucks, rental equipment, or containers used
to transport or deliver products to customers, such as compressed gas
canisters. The surface coating of these items (e.g., courier vehicles
or compressed gas canisters) that routinely leave and return to the
facility will be subject to the standards.
``Quality control activities'' has been defined to mean surface
coating or paint stripping activities that meet all of the following
criteria:
(1) The activities, associated with a surface coating or paint
stripping operation, to detect and correct defects in the final product
through selection of limited samples from the operation, and comparison
of the samples against specific performance criteria.
(2) The activities do not include the production of an intermediate
or final product for sale or exchange for commercial profit; for
example, parts that are surface coated or stripped are not sold.
(3) The activities are not a normal part of the miscellaneous
surface coating or paint stripping operation, e.g., they do not include
color matching activities performed on motor vehicles as part of
collision repair activities.
(4) The activities do not involve surface coating or stripping of
the tools, equipment, machinery, and structures that comprise the
infrastructure of the affected facility and that are necessary for the
facility to function in its intended capacity, e.g., the activities are
not facility maintenance.
``Research and laboratory activities'' has been defined to mean
surface coating or paint stripping activities whose primary purpose is
to conduct research and development into new processes and products,
that are performed under the close supervision of technically trained
personnel and do not include the manufacture of intermediate or final
products for commercial sale in commerce. Such activities are
ordinarily conducted in a dedicated area of a facility (such as a
dedicated room or paint booth), or in a separate facility. Research and
laboratory activities include, but are not limited to the following:
(1) Activities conducted to develop more efficient production
processes, including alternative paint stripping or surface coating
materials or application methods, or methods for preventing or reducing
adverse environmental impacts.
(2) Activities conducted at a laboratory to analyze air, soil,
water, waste, or product samples for contaminants or environmental
impact or to develop revised production processes to limit
environmental effects.
``Space Vehicle'' has been defined to mean vehicles designed to
travel beyond the limit of the earth's atmosphere, such as satellites,
space stations, and the Space Shuttle System (including orbiter,
external tanks, and solid rocket boosters).
``Spray-applied coating operations'' has been defined to mean
coatings that are applied using a hand-held device that creates an
atomized mist of coating and deposits the coating on a substrate. As
specified in the definition in the final rule, the following materials
or activities are not considered spray-applied coatings:
(1) Coatings applied from a hand-held device with a paint cup
capacity that is equal to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cubic
centimeters (cc)).
(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) 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.
[[Page 1742]]
B. Compliance Dates
New sources must comply with the requirements of the final rule
upon startup of operations, but no earlier than the effective date of
this notice. Existing sources must comply no later than three years
from the effective date of this notice.
C. Requirements for Paint Stripping Operations
All owners and operators of regulated sources conducting paint
stripping and using MeCl-containing paint stripper must implement
management practices that reduce emissions of MeCl by minimizing
evaporative losses of MeCl. The MeCl management practices involve only
using a MeCl-containing paint stripper when an alternative on site
stripping method or material is incapable of accomplishing the work as
determined by the operator. Alternative methods to reduce MeCl usage
may include:
(1) Non- or low-MeCl-containing chemical strippers;
(2) Mechanical stripping;
(3) Blasting (including dry or wet media); or
(4) Thermal and cryogenic decomposition.
The management practices required also include optimizing stripper
application conditions, reducing exposure of stripper to the air, and
practicing proper storage and disposal of materials containing MeCl.
Owners and operators must also maintain records of annual usage of
strippers containing MeCl.
In addition to the management practices, sources that use more than
one ton of MeCl per year need to develop and implement a MeCl
minimization plan. This must be a written plan including criteria to
evaluate the necessity of MeCl in the stripping operations and whether
alternatives are feasible. It must also describe the management
techniques that will be used to minimize MeCl emissions when MeCl is
needed in the paint stripping operation.
The MeCl minimization plan evaluation criteria involves only using
a MeCl-containing paint stripper when an alternative on site stripping
method or material is incapable of accomplishing the work as determined
by the operator. Alternative methods to reduce MeCl usage may include:
(1) Non- or low-MeCl-containing chemical strippers;
(2) Mechanical stripping;
(3) Blasting (including dry or wet media); or
(4) Thermal and cryogenic decomposition.
The management practices required to be contained in the plan
include optimizing stripper application conditions, reducing exposure
of stripper to the air, and practicing proper storage and disposal of
materials containing MeCl. Sources are required to notify either EPA or
the delegated State permit authority that they have developed a MeCl
minimization plan, keep a written copy of the plan on site and post a
placard or sign outlining the evaluation criteria and management
techniques in each area where MeCl-containing paint stripping
operations occur. They are also required to review the plan annually
and update it based on the experiences of the previous year or the
availability of new methods of stripping and to keep a record of the
review and changes made to the plan on file.
D. Requirements for Surface Coating Operations
All motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating operations
and those miscellaneous surface coating operations that spray apply
coatings containing the target HAP must apply the coatings with a high
volume, low pressure (HVLP) spray gun, electrostatic spray gun, airless
spray gun, air-assisted airless spray gun, or a gun demonstrated to be
equal in transfer efficiency to an HVLP spray gun. All spray-applied
coatings must be applied in a prep station or spray booth. For motor
vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating, prep stations and spray
booths that are large enough to hold a complete vehicle must have four
complete side walls or curtains and a complete roof. For motor vehicle
and mobile equipment subassemblies and for miscellaneous surface
coating, coatings must be spray applied in a booth with a full roof and
at least three walls or side curtains. Openings are allowed in the
sidewalls and roof of booths used for miscellaneous surface coating to
allow for parts conveyors, if needed. The exhaust from the prep station
or spray booth must be fitted with filters demonstrated to achieve at
least 98 percent filter efficiency of paint overspray.
Additionally, surface coating sources subject to the standards are
required to comply with management practices by demonstrating that:
(1) All painters that spray apply coatings have completed training
in techniques to minimize paint overspray, and
(2) That no spray gun cleaning is performed by spraying solvent
through the gun creating an atomized mist (i.e., spray guns are cleaned
in an enclosed spray gun cleaner or by cleaning the disassembled gun
parts by hand).
Initial painter training will be valid for a period of five years,
and refresher training must be repeated at least once every five years.
Painters that completed training in the last five years before the
compliance date will be able to use that training to satisfy this
requirement. To comply with the painter training requirements, all
spray painters at new sources must complete training no later than 180
days after hiring or 180 days from the date of this notice, whichever
is later. All spray painters at existing sources must complete training
no later than three years from the date of this notice or no later than
180 days after hiring, whichever is later.
The initial and refresher training must address the following
topics to reduce coating overspray and emissions:
(1) Spray gun equipment selection, set up, and operation, including
measuring coating viscosity, selecting the proper fluid tip or nozzle,
and achieving the proper spray pattern, air pressure and volume, and
fluid delivery rate.
(2) Spray technique for different types of coatings to improve
transfer efficiency and minimize coating 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.
(3) Routine spray booth and filter maintenance, including filter
selection and installation.
(4) Environmental compliance with the requirements of this subpart.
E. Notifications, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
All sources must submit an initial notification to the EPA or to
their State or local air pollution control agency, if the EPA has
delegated authority for implementing this rule to that agency, with a
copy sent to EPA, unless the EPA regional office has waived the dual
reporting requirements. New sources need to submit the initial
notification no later than 180 days after initial startup, or no later
than 180 days after the date of this notice, whichever is later.
Existing sources need to submit the initial notification no later than
one year before their compliance date. For new sources, the initial
notification will also serve as a notification on whether the source is
in compliance. For existing sources, the initial notification must
indicate whether the source is already in compliance or that it will be
brought into compliance by the existing source compliance date.
[[Page 1743]]
Additionally, all existing sources that did not state in their
initial notification that they were already in compliance with the
management practices and equipment requirements prescribed in the final
rule must also submit a notification of compliance status. The
notification of compliance status must be submitted no later than 60
days after the compliance date for existing sources. The notification
of compliance status must certify that the source is in compliance with
the applicable requirements for the activities being performed.
The initial notification must include the following information:
(1) The name, address, phone number and e-mail address (if
available) of the owner and operator.
(2) The address (physical location) of the affected source. If the
source is a motor vehicle or mobile equipment surface coating operation
that repairs vehicles at the customer's location, rather than at a
fixed collision repair shop, the notification should state this and
indicate the physical location where records are kept to demonstrate
compliance.
(3) A statement that the source is subject to this standard, 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHHHH.
(4) A brief description of the type of operation, including which
types of activities are performed at the source (miscellaneous surface
coating, motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating, or paint
stripping). For surface coating operations, identify the number of
spray booths and the number of painters usually employed at the
operation. For paint stripping, identify the method(s) of paint
stripping employed (e.g., chemical, mechanical) and the substrates
stripped (e.g., wood, plastic, metal).
(5) Each paint stripping operation must indicate whether they plan
to annually use more than one ton of MeCl after the compliance date.
Sources are only required to submit an annual report to the EPA or
to their State or local air pollution control agency if any information
in the initial notification, notification of compliance status report,
or in a previous annual report has changed in the previous calendar
year. If an annual report is needed, it must be submitted no later than
60 days after the yearly anniversary of the compliance date.
All sources must keep records sufficient to demonstrate that they
are in compliance at all times. These include the following:
(1) Records that each spray painter has completed the training,
with the date of the initial training and the most recent refresher
training.
(2) Documentation of the filter efficiency of any spray booth
exhaust filter material, such as data from the filter manufacturer.
(3) Documentation from the spray gun manufacturer that each spray
gun that does not meet the definition of an HVLP spray gun,
electrostatic spray gun, airless spray gun, or air-assisted airless
spray gun has been demonstrated to achieve a transfer efficiency equal
to one of the other allowed types of spray gun.
(4) Copies of any notifications or reports that were submitted.
(5) Records of paint strippers containing MeCl used for paint
stripping operations, including the MeCl content of the paint stripper
used, and annual usage.
(6) If you are a paint stripping source that annually uses more
than one ton of MeCl, a record of your current MeCl minimization plan,
and records of your annual review of, and updates to, your MeCl
minimization plan.
(7) Records of any deviation from the requirements in the final
rule, including the date and time period of the deviation, and a
description of the nature of the deviation and the actions taken to
correct the deviation.
(8) Records of any assessments of source compliance performed in
support of the initial notification, notification of compliance status,
or annual notification of changes report.
Under the final rule, owners and operators will not be required to
obtain a Title V operating permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 71, provided
they are not required to obtain a permit for another reason, even
though the source is an area source.
IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
A. Applicability
We have revised the rule since proposal to clarify the scope of the
source category to which it applies, and to clearly identify the
sources subject to the requirements of the rule. These revisions make
clear that the affected source category is not as broad as could have
been interpreted based on the language of the proposed rule. These
changes were made in both the applicability sections (Sec. Sec.
63.11169 to 63.11171) and to the definitions in Sec. 63.11180 that
describe particular operations that are subject to the standards.
We have revised Sec. 63.11169 to specify that compounds of
chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), and cadmium (Cd)
are the HAP for which the surface coating standards for miscellaneous
surface coating operations category was listed and which the standards
are designed to control. In subsequent sections of the rule, certain
provisions apply only to surface coating operations that are sources of
these target HAP.
We have revised Sec. 63.11170 to separate and more clearly explain
how the rule applies to paint stripping, motor vehicle and mobile
equipment surface coating, and miscellaneous surface coating. In
particular, motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating has been
separated from the larger category of miscellaneous surface coating and
is treated separately in the rest of the rule. In the proposed rule,
all surface coating was included under a single set of requirements
that made no distinction between motor vehicle and mobile equipment
surface coating and all other miscellaneous surface coating.
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has been added
to the list of installations to which this subpart does not apply. This
list is found in Sec. 63.11169. Surface coating and paint stripping at
NNSA installations would be regulated by the military surface coating
NESHAP that is under development.
Section 63.11169 has also been revised to specify that these
standards do not apply to paint stripping and surface coating performed
by individuals as part of a hobby, or for maintenance of their personal
vehicles, possessions, and property, or when they perform these
activities for others without compensation.
For motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating, all sources
and individuals that spray finish more than two motor vehicles or
pieces of mobile equipment per year are subject to the requirements in
the final rule that pertain to motor vehicle and mobile equipment
surface coating regardless of whether compensation is received.
However, we have included a provision in the final rule that allows an
owner or operator of a motor vehicle or mobile equipment surface
coating operation to petition the Administrator for an exemption from
this subpart if the owner or operator can demonstrate that they spray
apply no coatings that contain the target HAP. Petitions must include a
description of the coatings that they spray apply and certification
that they do not spray apply any coatings containing the target HAP. If
circumstances change such that the owner or operator intends to spray
apply coatings containing the target HAP, the owner or operator must
submit
[[Page 1744]]
the initial notification required by 63.11175 and comply with the
requirements of this subpart. While the proposed rule would have
required all motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating
operations to comply with the requirements of the rule, because the
category was listed for the target HAP, it is appropriate to allow
operations that do not use products containing the target HAP to
request that the rule not apply to them based on an adequate
demonstration that they do not use such products. EPA's understanding,
based on site visits and communications with the industry, is that many
shops, especially smaller ones, purchase coatings ``over the counter''
on a retail basis and usually do not receive composition data, such as
a material safety data sheet (MSDS), with these coatings. In addition,
when a specific color is needed for refinishing a vehicle, it is
usually custom-mixed from any number of about 50 different toners,
either by the painter at the shop, or by the coating retailer.
Therefore, it will likely be very difficult to determine whether any
particular coating being sprayed contains the target HAP, unless the
HAP composition of all coatings within the shop is known. For this
reason, and because we received comments from industry supporting the
proposed requirements, we expect that few, if any, petitions will be
received. We hope to encourage reformulation where possible through
this provision.
The applicability language in Sec. 63.11169 in the final rule has
been revised to exclude paint stripping and surface coating that meets
the definition of research and laboratory activities, and quality
control activities, as defined in Sec. 63.11180.
The applicability language in Sec. 63.11170 for motor vehicle and
mobile equipment surface coating operations has been revised to clarify
that the standards apply to all sources that spray apply these
coatings, including mobile refinishing operations, except when they
qualify as facility maintenance, as defined in Sec. 63.11180.
The applicability language for miscellaneous surface coating
operations has been revised to clarify the scope of the source category
subject to regulation. First, the standards apply to the spray
application of only coatings that contain the target HAP at
miscellaneous surface coating operations. Second, language has been
added to clarify that the standards apply only to plastic and metal
substrates. Third, the rule has been revised to also exclude
miscellaneous surface coating that meets the definition of ``facility
maintenance.'' Finally, surface coating on space vehicles has been
specifically excluded so as to parallel the applicability of subpart
GG, the major source NESHAP for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Facilities.
The applicability of the final rule has been further clarified by
revising or adding definitions to Sec. 63.11180 that better explain
the operations that are covered. The definition of ``coating'' was
revised to clarify that the following are not coatings subject to this
rule:
(a) Adhesives, sealants, maskants, or caulking materials.
(b) Temporary protective coatings, lubricants, or surface
preparation materials.
(c) In-mold coatings that are spray-applied in the manufacture of
reinforced plastic composite parts.
New definitions were added for ``facility maintenance'', ``quality
control activities'', ``research and laboratory activities'', and
``spray-applied coating.'' These definitions were fully described in
section III.A of this preamble.
B. Compliance Dates
The compliance date for existing sources has been extended from two
years to three years after the effective date of today's final rule
notice.
C. Requirements for Paint Stripping Operations
The format of the MeCl minimization plan threshold for the paint
stripping portion of the rule has been revised from total stripper
volume usage to MeCl mass usage for several reasons. First, EPA
believes it is more appropriate to address the emissions directly, when
possible, in lieu of using a surrogate that may or may not accomplish
the goal. Additionally, a mass usage format may serve as an incentive
for sources to evaluate the appropriate MeCl content of their chemical
strippers and also provide the sources with greater flexibility. The
rule sets the MeCl minimization plan threshold at one ton per year of
MeCl contained in paint strippers.
D. Requirements for Surface Coating Operations
The rule has been revised to create separate categories for motor
vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating and for miscellaneous
surface coating. For motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface
coating, the requirements for painter training, high efficiency spray
guns (e.g., HVLP or equivalent), spray booths with filters, and gun
washing still apply to all sources as described in the applicability
section of the rule.
For miscellaneous surface coating operations, the rule has been
revised so that it applies only to those surface coating operations
that spray apply coatings that contain the target HAP; other surface
coating operations do not need to comply with those requirements.
Miscellaneous surface coating operations that spray apply coatings that
contain the target HAP must meet the same requirements as motor vehicle
and mobile equipment surface coating operations.
The spray painter training requirements have been revised so that
training is not required on those topics that do not have a direct
effect on emissions reductions. More detail has been added on the
topics that impact emissions reductions (e.g., transfer efficiency) and
for which training is required. The training requirements have also
been revised to allow an owner or operator to certify that their
employees have completed training to facilitate the use of in-house
training programs. Spray painters will also have 180 days to complete
training after hiring or transferring to a surface coating job, instead
of 60 days.
The requirements for spray guns have been revised to allow the use
of airless or air-assisted airless spray guns without having to
demonstrate that they are equivalent to HVLP spray guns in transfer
efficiency.
The requirements for spray booth filters have been revised so that
all spray booth exhaust filters must achieve 98 percent paint overspray
filter efficiency (also referred to as ``arrestance''), and details
have been added on the method that must be used to measure that
efficiency. The final rule also clarifies that compliance with the
filter efficiency standard can be demonstrated through data provided by
the filter manufacturer.
The booth requirements have been revised to allow for openings in
side walls and roofs for part conveyors. They have also been revised to
allow for booths that are operated at up to 0.05 inches water gauge
positive pressure, if they have sealed doors and other openings and use
a pressure balancing system.
The rule language related to spray gun washing has been revised to
clarify that atomized spraying of gun cleaning solvent is prohibited,
and allowable means of washing spray guns include hand cleaning
disassembled spray guns, manually flushing solvent through the gun
(without atomizing it) and capturing the spent solvent, and using an
enclosed gun washer, but an enclosed gun washer is not required.
[[Page 1745]]
E. Notifications, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
The notification and reporting requirements of the rule have been
simplified and reduced. All sources will still need to submit an
initial notification, but in that initial notification, sources will be
asked to state whether they are already in compliance with the
requirements of the rule or whether they plan to be in compliance by
the compliance date. For new sources, the initial notification will
also serve as the notification of compliance status since they would
otherwise be due by the same date. If existing sources are already in
compliance by the time they submit the initial notification and certify
that they are in compliance in their initial notification, they do not
need to submit a separate notification of compliance status. The need
for regular annual compliance reports has also been removed. Sources
will need to submit an annual compliance report only if there is a
change in any of the information contained in the initial notification,
the notification of compliance status (if one was needed), or in a
previous annual compliance report (if one was needed).
The rule has been revised to remove the requirement for paint
stripping sources to submit MeCl minimization plans to permitting
authorities. Facilities will be required to submit either an initial
notification or a notification of compliance status that says they have
prepared and implemented the plan. Instead of submitting the plan,
sources are only required to keep the plan on site. The facility has to
review and update their plan annually and keep records of the review
and changes made on site rather than submitting an annual compliance
report to EPA or a State permitting authority.
For paint stripping, motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface
coating operations, and miscellaneous surface coating operations, the
rule has been revised so that these sources will only have to keep the
records needed to demonstrate compliance instead of submitting annual
compliance reports.
V. Summary of Comments and Responses
A. Applicability
Comment: Several commenters argued that the miscellaneous surface
coating rule should apply only to surface coating facilities that emit
the target HAP, and that target HAP should be defined as the HAP for
which the miscellaneous surface coating source category was listed.
These are specifically compounds of Cr, Pb, Mn, Ni, and Cd.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters and recognizes that
many miscellaneous surface coating operations exist that do not spray
apply coatings containing the target HAP. Therefore, the applicability
sections have been revised so that the final rule will apply to only
miscellaneous surface coating sources that spray apply coatings
containing the target HAP. If your miscellaneous surface coating
operations do not spray apply any coatings containing the target HAP,
then you are not subject to this rule and do not need to comply with
the requirements for operator training, spray guns, or spray booths.
This change in the language of the applicability provision accurately
reflects the sources for which the miscellaneous surface coating source
category was listed, because sources that do not spray apply coatings
containing the target HAP will have no target HAP emissions and were
therefore not part of the inventory on which the source category
listing was based. It will also create an incentive for all
miscellaneous surface coating sources to review the coatings they are
spray applying and find substitutes for those that contain the target
HAP or to switch to non-spray methods to apply those coatings. Although
some contract coaters and ``job shops'' may use a large number of
different coatings, most miscellaneous surface coating operations use
only a small number of coatings and the composition data for these can
be reviewed to identify whether these coatings contain the target HAP.
However, based on the overwhelming support of the commenters for
the applicability criteria and scope of the motor vehicle and mobile
equipment source category, we are not narrowing the applicability to
only the target HAP for the motor vehicle and mobile equipment source
category. The EPA's understanding, based on site visits and
communications with the industry, is that these requirements are
consistent with current good environmental and worker protection
practices. (See other comment responses for additional clarifications
on applicability that exclude coating of personal property and
vehicles, facility maintenance coating, etc.) The final rule applies to
all motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating operations.
However, if you are the owner or operator of a motor vehicle or mobile
equipment surface coating operation, you may petition the Administrator
for an exemption from this subpart if you can demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the Administrator, that you spray apply no coatings
that contain the target HAP. Petitions must include a description of
the coatings that you spray apply and your certification that you do
not spray apply any coatings containing the target HAP. If
circumstances change such that you intend to spray apply coatings
containing the target HAP, you must submit the initial notification
required by 63.11175 and comply with the requirements of this subpart.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the rule should be revised to
add the NNSA to the list of installations to which this subpart does
not apply. The commenter noted that EPA is planning that surface
coating and paint stripping at NNSA installations would be addressed by
the military surface coating NESHAP that is under development.
Response: The EPA agrees and has added NNSA installations to the
list of installations to which this subpart does not apply. These
installations will be addressed by the military surface coating NESHAP
that is under development.
Comment: Several comments noted that the applicability of the
proposed rule, as written, could be interpreted to apply to all paint
stripping and surface coating operations, and included no exemptions
for automobile hobbyists or homeowners stripping and painting their own
property or vehicles. Nearly all commenters felt that paint stripping
and surface coating by hobbyists and homeowners should be exempt from
the rule. Several commenters suggested that EPA establish a de minimis
usage threshold, based on either major source surface coating rules or
state volatile organic compounds (VOC) rules, to exclude noncommercial
paint stripping or surface coating operations. The commenters noted
that hobbyist and homeowner activities are difficult to locate because
they are located in residential areas and are intermittent. However,
one commenter suggested that the rule should have no exemptions and any
individual painting vehicles should be subject to the proposed
equipment and training requirements.
Response: EPA re-examined the scope of the source categories that
we listed based on the 1990 national emissions inventory. The analyses
that were the basis for the source category listing for paint
stripping, miscellaneous surface coating, and motor vehicle and mobile
equipment surface coating focused on commercial operations, along with
some government and institutional operations, such as municipal garages
that service fleet vehicles. Homeowners
[[Page 1746]]
and hobbyists were not part of these analyses and were not intended to
be part of the listed source categories.
Therefore, the final rule has been revised to clarify that it does
not cover paint stripping and surface coating performed by individuals
on their personal vehicles, possessions, or property, either as a hobby
or for maintenance. This subpart also does not apply when these
operations are performed by individuals for others without
compensation, which is akin to the hobbyist and homeowner activities
not considered in the baseline inventory that formed the basis for the
listing of the source categories at issue here.
However, for motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating
operations, an individual surface coating more than two vehicles per
year will be covered by the rule. This limit on the number of vehicles
coated per year was included so that commercial automobile surface
coating shops could not avoid compliance by claiming to be a hobby
shop. The limit was based on information collected from automobile
hobbyists during the rule development. The hobbyists that provided
information to the EPA suggested that a legitimate hobbyist would
complete no more than two automobile restorations or customizations per
year.
The EPA is not including a volumetric coating usage threshold in
the final rule for either motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface
coating operations, or for miscellaneous surface coating operations, as
suggested by some commenters, because the threshold is not supported by
the baseline inventory on which we based our listing decision. CAA
section 112(c)(3) requires that EPA list sufficient categories and
subcategories to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of
the emissions of the 30 listed urban HAP are subject to regulation. The
CAA contains no exemption from the statutory requirement to regulate
sources accounting for 90 percent of the emissions of an urban HAP. The
inventory does not indicate that in listing the categories at issue
here EPA included only those sources that use coatings above a certain
threshold amount. Moreover, the commenter's reliance on the use of
thresholds in certain major source HAP rules and State VOC rules is
misplaced. EPA listed the area source categories at issue in this rule
because the categories accounted for a certain percentage of the
emissions necessary to meet the 90 percent requirement for the target
urban HAP; therefore, regulation of the categories as listed is
necessary for EPA to attain the 90 percent reduction of those HAP and
comply with the requirements of section 112(c)(3) and 112(k). The rules
on which the commenters rely were not issued under these provisions.
Comment: Three commenters suggested EPA exempt from the proposed
rule operations that use less than 150 gallons per year of paint
stripper that contains MeCl. A commenter justified the exemption as
allowing minor paint stripping operations to continue, and let the
regulating authorities focus on the more significant operations and
facilities.
Response: EPA is required by the CAA to regulate emissions from
area sources, which are, by definition, small sources. Based on
baseline emission estimates updated with additional information
provided by commenters, we estimate that 150 gallons of MeCl equates to
approximately one ton of MeCl emissions per year from each of these
small sources. This represents around five percent of the total area
source MeCl emissions considered in the original section 112(k)
inventory. While we appreciate the opinions of the commenters to focus
on the more significant emitters, we cannot justify ignoring this level
of MeCl emissions.
We have minimized the requirements and burden on these low level
users by not requiring them to develop MeCl minimization plans. We do
not feel that asking them to consider alternatives to using MeCl-based
strippers is overly burdensome. The reporting requirements for these
low level users are also minimal. They must submit an initial
notification letter and keep MeCl-based stripper purchase or use
records, which we believe would be maintained for tax purposes already.
We do not believe that receiving one letter per facility would be
overly burdensome for permitting agencies. In conclusion, we feel that
our approach has adequately balanced the requirements of the CAA
without unduly burdening small businesses in this source category or
permitting agencies.
Comment: One commenter noted that while basing the threshold level
that triggers development of a written MeCl minimization plan on the
total quantity of stripper used may simplify compliance, it does not
consider the MeCl content of the stripper formulation, and thus may
create a disincentive for facilities to explore formulations with lower
MeCl content. They stated that, although the MeCl-based products
commonly used in paint stripping operations contain 75 to 90 percent
MeCl, products containing 40 to 50 percent of the solvent are also
available. However, they pointed out that facilities may need to use
more stripper to compensate for the lower MeCl content, resulting in
the need for higher volumes. The commenter indicated that they did not
believe that specifying a use threshold based on the MeCl content was
appropriate. They indicated that a higher gallon-per-year limit would
allow many paint stripping firms to explore the applicability of lower
MeCl-content formulations to their operations. The commenter stated
that discussions with member companies that formulate MeCl-based
strippers for commercial operations indicated that a threshold of 500
to 600 gallons also would better distinguish between operations that
perform paint stripping as a regular part of their business and those
that conduct stripping on an as-needed (incidental) basis.
Another commenter said that to be cost effective, shops buy MeCl
based strippers in 55 gallon drums, which makes the 150 gallon per year
minimum unrealistic. They suggested that a 220 gallon per year
threshold would be a more realistic number and would reflect a factor
of cost-effective bulk purchases.
Response: As discussed in the proposal preamble (72 FR 52966), a
subcategory of paint strippers was created to distinguish those sources
that were assumed to have alternative on site paint stripping
technologies available. The threshold level to define this subcategory
was proposed as a volume of MeCl-based stripper used (150 gallons per
year). Given the large number of small businesses that will be impacted
by this rule, we thought that this volume-based threshold would lessen
the burden when compared with a threshold based on the mass of MeCl in
the stripper.
However, we do recognize the relevant points made by the commenter.
If owners and operators performing paint stripping cannot find non-MeCl
alternatives, we certainly want to encourage them to consider strippers
with lower MeCl contents. We understand that basing this threshold on
volume may provide a disincentive to the use of these low-MeCl content
strippers.
Like the commenter, we do not believe that specifying a use
threshold based on the MeCl content is appropriate. However, we believe
that simply raising the volume-based threshold would remove all
incentive to use lower MeCl content strippers, rather than encourage
their usage. Increasing the volume-based threshold from the proposed
150 gallons per year to the suggested 500 to 600 gallons per year would
increase the emissions of
[[Page 1747]]
facilities required to develop a written MeCl minimization plan three
or four-fold, assuming that they utilize a stripper with the same MeCl
content. Further, sources using these levels of MeCl strippers could
emit as much as three to four tons of MeCl if using high-MeCl content
strippers. We do not believe it is unreasonable to require sources with
the potential to emit MeCl at these levels to develop a formal plan for
reducing these emissions and evaluating the feasibility of alternative
paint stripping technology.
We considered including both a volume-based and mass-based
threshold in the final rule. However, the complexity of such provisions
defeated the purpose of using a simple volume-based threshold in the
first place. Therefore, in the final rule, the threshold that defines
the subcategory of paint strippers that is required to develop a
written MeCl minimization plan is on a mass basis. Specifically, the
final rule requires paint strippers that use more than one ton per year
of MeCl in paint strippers to develop a written MeCl minimization plant
to implement the management practices in the rule.
As noted in the proposal preamble, a major criterion in the
selection of the proposed 150 gallons per year threshold was our model
plant impacts analysis. The 150 gallons per year level was selected for
the model plant representing stripping operations that use between 100
and 250 gallons of MeCl paint strippers. Facilities represented by this
model plant would be using around one ton of MeCl per year for their
paint stripping operations, depending on the density of the stripper
and the percent of MeCl in the stripper (assuming the higher range of
MeCl contents confirmed by the commenter). Therefore, as described
elsewhere in the record for this rulemaking, any level selected within
this range would still be consistent with our proposed threshold.
In addition to being consistent with our proposed intention, the
one ton MeCl per year threshold is also relatively compatible with the
requested volume-based levels requested by the commenter, assuming that
lower-content MeCl strippers are used. For example, between 450 and 500
gallons of paint stripper containing 40 percent MeCl could be used and
still remain below the one ton per year MeCl threshold.
Finally, while we appreciate the practicality of a threshold based
on the purchase of 55-gallon drums, as discussed above, we have
concluded that any volume-based threshold is not ideal. If owners and
operators of paint stripping operators wish to remain below the
threshold and avoid the requirement to develop a written MeCl
minimization plan, we would suggest that they calculate the number of
55-gallon drums of stripper that they can utilize and still remain
below the one ton level and plan accordingly.
Comment: Two commenters felt the number of affected paint stripping
sources used to assess impacts in the proposed rule was too low. A
commenter extrapolated information from California, Canada, and other
sources to develop an estimate of sources affected by the proposed rule
and commented that EPA's estimate of 3,000 sources was an
underestimate. Using two methods to extrapolate from estimates of
furniture stripping operations using MeCl-based strippers in
California, one based on population and the other based on business
statistics, they estimated that nationally, approximately 4,000 sources
were involved in furniture stripping with MeCl-based strippers.
Factoring in autobody shops use of MeCl-based strippers, the number of
facilities affected is two to three times EPA's estimate of 3,000
firms. Additionally, a significantly larger number of firms would
exceed the proposed 150 gallon threshold. As a result, the total cost
of EPA's proposal would be significantly higher than estimated.
Response: Developing an estimate of the number of affected sources
was a difficult portion of the analyses conducted, to arrive at the
proposed rule and to estimate its impacts. Unlike source categories
with large facilities, emission inventories were not as useful in
arriving at an estimate of facility numbers. Further, this source
category does not have an industrial trade organization to turn to for
further information about the source category.
We appreciate the additional information on number of affected
facilities provided by the commenters and considered the impacts of
revising the population in the final rule. However, since little
documentation was provided in support of the population estimate we
have decided not to revise the estimate of sources. Finally, a change
in the population totals affects the impacts proportionally and since
we received no adverse comments on the assumptions and basis for our
proposed impacts, which indicated a cost savings, we have decided not
to revise the impacts and just rely on those at proposal as a worst-
case analysis.
Comment: Several commenters asked for clarification on whether the
rule applies to mobile automobile refinishers that perform spot repairs
and other refinishing, such as fender and bumper repairs, at the
customer's location, rather than in a conventional collision repair
shop. Several other commenters also asked for clarification on whether
motor vehicle refinishing coating operations (primarily refinishing of
car bumpers and fenders) using ``miniature'' spray guns would be
subject to the same standards as other motor vehicle refinishing
operations. The commenters felt that surface coating with these
miniature spray guns should be subject to the proposed standards, but
felt that the final rule should clarify this applicability relative to
operations done with air brushes. One commenter asked the EPA to
increase the size of the spray cup allowed on air brushes that would be
exempt from the standards.
Response: The proposed and final rule is intended to cover mobile
motor vehicle refinishing operations that bring the coating equipment
and supplies to the repaired vehicle, as well as those in which the
vehicle is brought to a conventional collision repair shop. In the
final rule, these mobile refinishers are subject to the rule
requirements for training, spray equipment, and the use of a spray
booth or other ventilated and filtered enclosure if they spray apply
coatings from a spray gun with a cup size greater than 3.0 fluid ounces
(89 cc). If they use a cup size equal to or smaller than 3.0 fluid
ounces, they do not need to comply with the requirements for training,
spray guns, and ventilated and filtered enclosures.
The proposed rule would not have applied to spray-applied coatings
using an airbrush or spray gun with a cup size of 1.0 fluid ounce (30
cc) or less, and this was intended, in part, to address mobile repair
and refinishing operations that performed repairs of small stone chips
and scratches, and graphic artists and others using these small spray
guns to paint motor vehicles, signs, or other items that are
potentially subject to the rule. These touch up and repair operations,
and graphic arts painting on vehicles, were not part of the original
inventory that focused on collision repair shops and other types of
motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating, so the source
category does not include surface coating with small airbrushes, and
such operations are not subject to this rule.
However, during the development of this rule, the EPA learned that
more motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating that was
formerly done by collision repair shops (and as such, was reflected in
the source category listing) is now being done by mobile operators.
Since this practice is becoming more common, the EPA has
[[Page 1748]]
decided that this source of emissions should be regulated on the same
basis as motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating that takes
place at a fixed location. Even so, the EPA felt it was not necessary
to regulate in this rule small touch up and spot repair operations done
with an airbrush, because these operations were not reflected in the
original inventory and source category listing.
Since the EPA could identify no single characteristic or group of
characteristics to clearly differentiate a larger spray gun from an
``air brush'' we have decided to define applicability based on the cup
size of the spray equipment. In the final rule, all motor vehicle and
mobile equipment spray coating operations and miscellaneous surface
coating operations with a cup size greater than 3.0 ounces (89 cc)
would be subject to the applicable standards for painter training and
equipment. Surface coating operations with a smaller cup size would not
be subject to the standards for spray-applied surface coating
operations since these are typically just touch up and repair surface
coating.
This size (3.0 ounces or 89 cc) was selected based on a review of
vendor literature for miniature spray guns and air brushes, and
discussions with collision repair shop owners that commented on the
proposed rule. This cup size is less than the minimum practical amount
of coating that could be used to refinish a bumper or fender.
Therefore, it helps distinguish those sources that are doing small
scratch and spot repairs from those that are doing work that is more
typically done at a collision repair shop.
Comment: Many commenters stated that the proposed requirements for
miscellaneous surface coating operations, as written, could be
interpreted to potentially apply to all surface coating operations
beyond those associated with the manufacture of plastic and metal parts
and products. Examples cited by the commenters included the spray
application of adhesives that do not include any of the target HAP, the
spray application of coatings in the manufacture of leather shoes, and
the spray application of coatings in the restoration of wood furniture.
Several commenters also asked that the rule should specifically
exclude surface coating operations that do not involve the use of
spray-applied liquid coatings, since these operations have little
potential for the target HAP emissions.
Other commenters noted that the proposed rule could also be
interpreted to apply to the surface coating of buildings and other
stationary structures, such as bridges, water towers, and stationary
equipment at manufacturing and processing facilities. The commenters
recommended that the rule include an exemption for facility maintenance
surface coating, and for research and development activities, as is
found in the major source surface coating rules. Other commenters added
that quality control activities should also be exempt since these are
often of the same scale as research and development activities and are
conducted at coating manufacturing facilities that do not produce
surface coated parts for sale.
Some commenters noted that it may be impractical to perform surface
coating of large pieces of mobile equipment, such as some types of
mining and farm equipment, in a spray booth or similar enclosure. The
commenters suggested an exemption for these types of equipment that are
generally coated in the field since it is not practical to move them to
a dedicated facility for surface coating.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters that the rule was
intended to only apply to surface coating on plastic and metal
substrates and language has been added to clarify that the standards do
not apply to other substrates, such as wood, leather, fabric, rubber,
masonry, ceramics, concrete, or stone. Spray coating of these other
substrates was not considered in the inventory on which the surface
coating source category listing was based.
The rule has also been revised to specifically exclude surface
coating that meets the definitions of ``facility maintenance'',
``research and laboratory activities'', and ``quality control
activities'' in Sec. 63.11180. Paint stripping and surface coating
associated with these research and laboratory activities and quality
control activities will not be subject to the standards as long as the
items that are the subject of the surface coating or paint stripping
are not products for commerce or for a function outside the facility,
and do not leave the facility. For example, surface coating of test
coupons in the manufacture of a coating to verify the final color of
the coating is a quality control activity that is exempt from the rule
because the test coupons are not products for commerce and are not
intended to leave the facility. However, surface coating that is done
to correct a defect or repair damage on a product that was detected as
part of a final quality control check before the product leaves the
factory is potentially subject to the rule.
``Facility maintenance'' is defined to include architectural
surface coating activities on stationary structures and process
equipment. It is also defined to include the surface coating of mobile
equipment in the field, such as farming or mining equipment, or mobile
equipment coated at a site where it is used, such as a fork truck
coated at a manufacturing facility. The surface coating of stationary
structures in the field was not intended to be part of the
miscellaneous surface coating source category and was not included in
EPA's analysis in the development of the proposed rule. Similarly, the
surface coating of process equipment including, for example, farming
and mining equipment that is coated in the field, was also not intended
to be part of the source category and was not included in EPA's
analyses.
The definition of facility maintenance specifically excludes
surface coating of motor vehicles, mobile equipment, or other items
that routinely leave and return to the facility, such as delivery
trucks, rental equipment, or containers used to transport or deliver
products to customers. The paint stripping and surface coating of these
latter items that routinely leave and return to the facility are
subject to the standards for surface coating operations. Facility
maintenance is limited to the paint stripping and surface coating of
the infrastructure or process equipment of the facility. Items that
routinely leave and return to a facility are not considered part of the
facility's infrastructure or process equipment.
The final rule includes definitions of ``coating'' and ``spray-
applied coating operations'' that include lists of materials and
activities that are not subject to the final standards for either motor
vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating, or for miscellaneous
surface coating operations.
The definition of ``coating'' excludes the following materials
because they either do not contain the target HAP, they are not spray-
applied,or, if they are spray-applied, they are applied in larger
particles that settle near the source and are not emitted and are not
sources of the target HAP for which the surface coating categories were
listed:
Decorative, protective, or functional materials that
consist only of protective oils for metal, acids, bases, or any
combination of these substances.
Paper film or plastic film that may be pre-coated with an
adhesive by the film manufacturer.
Adhesives, sealants, maskants, or caulking materials.
[[Page 1749]]
Temporary protective coatings, lubricants, or surface
preparation materials.
The definition of ``coating'' also excludes in-mold coatings,
typically gel coatings, that are spray-applied in the manufacture of
reinforced plastic composite parts. Gel coats are part of the
fabrication process for reinforced plastic composites, and were
considered in separate processes when the EPA developed the inventory
which served as the basis for the source category listing.
The definition of ``spray-applied coating operations'' excludes
several operations that were not considered part of the inventory that
was the basis for the source category listing. These excluded
operations are not subject to the rule. As described earlier in this
section, coatings applied from a spray gun or air brush with a paint
cup capacity that is equal to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cc) are
not included because they are primarily used for touch up and repair
operations.
Surface coating application using powder coating, hand-held, non-
refillable aerosol containers, or non-atomizing application technology,
including, for example, paint brushes, rollers, hand wiping, flow
coating, dip coating, electrodeposition coating, web coating, coil
coating, touch-up markers, and marking pens are not included because
they do not atomize coating, so they are not sources of the target HAP
emissions from the spray application of coating.
The definition of spray-applied surface coating operation does not
include thermal spray operations (also known as metallizing, flame
spray, plasma arc spray, and electric arc spray, among other names). In
these operations, 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. These are inorganic coatings (conductive metals) that were not
considered part of the source category. In addition, although they are
metals (usually zinc or aluminum), they do not contain the target HAP
of concern for which the miscellaneous surface coating category was
listed. In addition, the metal particles created are larger than those
created in spraying liquid organic coatings and are less likely to be
emitted.
Comment: One commenter asked that the applicability be revised to
specifically exclude surface coating operations on space vehicles so as
to parallel the applicability of subpart GG, the major source NESHAP
for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has revised Sec.
63.11170 to specifically exclude surface coating on space vehicles from
the standards for miscellaneous surface coating in the final rule.
However, paint stripping operations on space vehicles using MeCl would
still be subject to the standards in the final rule. Paint stripping on
space vehicles is regulated at major sources by subpart GG.
B. Compliance Date
Comment: Several State agency commenters requested existing sources
be given three years to comply rather than two years. They contend that
more time is needed for State and local agencies to identify all
subject sources and perform the needed outreach activities, and for the
sources to have time to get all of their painters trained and to
purchase and install any needed equipment. Sources may be difficult to
identify and unfamiliarity with the rules is likely to be widespread
because the sources are small businesses, with frequent employee
turnover and changes in ownership. Commenters added that most other air
toxics regulations allow existing sources three years to comply and
this rule should be consistent to allow time for outreach.
Response: EPA has revised the proposed rule to allow existing
sources three years to comply. EPA agrees that the State agencies and
other commenters have provided sufficient justification that three
years is needed. There is a lack of readily available information to
identify all of the area sources that are subject to the rule. Many of
the area sources covered by the rule are small and have not previously
been subject to air pollution control rules. Therefore, implementing
agencies will need time to widely publicize these rules, develop
outreach materials, and perform outreach though a variety of channels
in order to inform sources that they are subject to the rule. In
addition, many small sources are likely to require assistance in
determining applicability, identifying the necessary steps to achieve
compliance including, but not limited to locating and registering for
painter training. Section 112 of the CAA allows up to three years for
existing sources to comply, and given the characteristics of the source
category, three years is a reasonable compliance time for this rule.
C. Requirements for Paint Stripping Operations
Comment: Two commenters provided positive feedback on the proposal
of Generally Available Management Practices as GACT, agreeing that
development of a MeCl minimization plan is a good idea. They added that
the plan would make sources more aware of the impacts of certain
practices and require them to develop alternate ways to perform paint
stripping operations without the use of MeCl. Another supported the
EPA's focus on management practices to reduce emissions of MeCl from
paint stripping operations rather than on what they termed
inappropriate technology requirements or alternative stripping
techniques.
Response: Like the commenters, we believed that it was most
appropriate to place the decisions on the feasibility of alternatives
to MeCl strippers at the feet of those who know their business best.
Therefore, the final rule retains the proposed requirements that owners
and operators institute management practices to reduce MeCl emissions
from paint stripping.
Comment: There were several comments received that discussed the
need for MeCl for stripping and expressed doubt at the plausibility of
alternative technologies. A commenter remarked that in many cases,
products containing MeCl are the only effective means of removing
certain finishes, such as polyurethanes and most paints, for commercial
operations. Another stated that, in their department's experience, most
chemical paint stripping operations were dedicated to stripping paint
from wooden furniture. They noted that the proposed management practice
of recoating without stripping or substituting alternative stripping
technologies was not a possibility for painted wood. Owners of a small
business dedicated to restoring furniture, commented that for furniture
restoration shops to reduce their MeCl use, there would have to be
better alternative chemical strippers available. MeCl strippers are not
flammable, but the current alternative chemical strippers are highly
flammable and explosive. In addition, the current alternative chemical
strippers cost two to three times those containing MeCl, and take two
to five hours to work versus 15 to 20 minutes for those containing
MeCl. Another commenter supported the EPA's proposal to allow the
facility to determine whether a MeCl-based product was appropriate for
the particular paint stripping task. They provided a comment that
quotes from the preamble to the proposed rule that the evaluation
criteria in the management plan would involve ``only using MeCl-
containing paint stripper when an alternative on site stripper
[[Page 1750]]
method or material is incapable of accomplishing the work as determined
by the operator.''
Response: The rule does not limit or ban the use of MeCl-based
paint strippers. The rule also does not say when a facility can use or
cannot use MeCl-based paint strippers. Instead, the rule encourages
operations to think of ideas specific to their operation where
alternative stripping technologies can be employed. The facility has
the obligation to determine whether and when it can most effectively
substitute alternative technologies for MeCl-containing stripper. In
some cases a facility may find that MeCl strippers may currently be the
only feasible choice; however, in other cases these strippers may
currently be used as a matter of routine and suitable alternatives can
be used instead.
The basis of the rule is to consider, and when possible, to use
alternative stripping techniques. There are situations where
alternative stripping methods can be employed successfully. Examples of
alternative techniques for wood include sanding off the top layers of
paint and using a smaller amount of MeCl-containing stripper to remove
the remaining paint. Another would be to sand the flat surfaces and use
the MeCl-containing stripper to remove the paint from only certain
areas such as carvings or joinings.
D. Authority To Regulate Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations
Comment: A commenter argued that plastic parts and product surface
coating should not be listed as an area source of the specific heavy
metals in urban areas. The commenter stated that the major source rule
for plastic parts surface coating (40 CFR Part 63 subpart PPPP) did not
regulate heavy metal emissions and did not require the use of spray
booths. The commenter also stated that heavy metals were not mentioned
in the proposed or final major source rule. The commenter also
contended that the listing of plastic parts and products was not
consistent with EPA's stated policy for listing sources of HAP (64 FR
38720, July 19, 1999) and heavy metal HAP (64 FR 38722). The commenter
further stated that the analysis in the preamble to the proposed area
source rule indicates that plastic part surface coating sources account
for only about 700 pounds a year, or between 0.15 percent and 0.33
percent of total area source heavy metal emissions. The commenter
requested EPA to change the listing decision and remove plastic parts
coating operations from the rule.
Response: The listing and regulation of plastic parts and products
(surface coating) for the targeted metal HAP is consistent with CAA
requirements. Sections 112(c) and 112(k) of the CAA instruct EPA to
identify and list area source categories accounting for at least 90
percent of the emissions of the 30 listed HAP (referred to as ``urban
HAP'') (64 FR 38706, July 19, 1999). One of the listed area source
categories is plastic parts and products (surface coatings). The
commenter provides no information indicating that this listing was
inappropriate.
In the 1999 final urban air toxics strategy notice, we listed 16
area source categories including paint stripping. Each of these
categories accounted for at least 15 percent of at least one of the 30
urban HAP. See 64 FR at 38720. But, as indicated in that notice, the
initial list of area source categories did not account for 90 percent
of several of the HAP, including six metal HAP (64 FR 38722, July 19,
1999). That notice announced EPA's intent to study additional area
source categories and complete the list of area source categories by
2003.
In June 2002, we listed several additional area source categories
including autobody refinishing (67 FR 43122, June 26, 2002). That
listing, however, still did not meet the requirement to list area
sources representing 90 percent of the area source emissions of each of
the 30 HAP. In the urban air toxics strategy, EPA indicated we would be
adding additional area source categories as necessary to meet the 90
percent requirement.
Consequently, in November 2002, we listed 23 additional area source
categories including plastic parts and products (surface coating) (67
FR 70428, November 22, 2002). Each of these listed categories
contributes some percentage of emissions of one or more of the 30 urban
HAP. The plastic parts and products (surface coating) area source
category was listed for cadmium, chromium, lead compounds, manganese,
and nickel compounds. In order to meet the 90 percent requirement for
each of the 30 urban HAP, we had to list many categories that
individually contributed only a small percent of the target HAP.
This history and the CAA requirements for area sources explain why
the metal urban HAP are the target of the surface coating portion of
this area source rule. We are required during rule development to
regulate emissions of the target urban HAP from surface coating area
sources. Under section 112(d) area source regulations may be based on
GACT rather than MACT, which is required for major sources. In this
rule we have established emissions standards that represent GACT for
the source categories. The commenter has provided no information
questioning the GACT determination in the proposed rule.
Comment: One commenter stated that the rule should not regulate
surface coating on metal parts and products as part of the
miscellaneous surface coating source category because it was not listed
as an area source category. The commenter noted that the category
included in the final notice for the list of source categories in
November 2002\2\ was ``plastic parts and products (surface coating).''
The commenter also noted that the description of this source category
in supporting documents for that listing includes industrial
classification codes only for plastic parts and products. However, the
commenter notes that the standard industrial classification code for
miscellaneous metal surface coating (SIC 3479) was included in the
source category description for ``autobody refinishing paint shops.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 67 FR 70427 (November 22, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The EPA's decision to list plastic parts and product
(surface coating) as an area source category was based on analysis of
emissions data from over 20 different SIC codes that represent
manufacturers of parts and products that contain both metal and plastic
substrates. These included, for example, architectural metal work;
games, toys, and childrens' vehicles; motor homes; motor vehicle parts
and accessories; motor cycles, bicycles, and parts; musical
instruments; transportation equipment not elsewhere classified; and
truck and bus bodies. These analyses were documented in ``1990
EMISSIONS INVENTORY OF FORTY POTENTIAL Sec. 112(k) POLLUTANTS,
SUPPORTING DATA FOR EPA'S Sec. 112(k) REGULATORY STRATEGY, Final
Report'' (May 21, 1999). A copy of the relevant portions of this
document has been included in the docket for this final rulemaking.
Since the analysis of the inventory included a broad sampling of
both metal and plastic surface coating that were identified as sources
of the target HAP, the EPA is regulating both metal and plastic surface
coating operations in the final rule. To more accurately reflect the
scope of the regulated operation, we refer to them in the final rule as
``miscellaneous surface coating operations'' and describe them more
completely in the applicability section of the final rule.
[[Page 1751]]
E. Basis of Surface Coating Standards
Comment: Some commenters believed that the requirements for spray
booths and painter training, particularly applied to very small
miscellaneous surface coating operations and those that apply coatings
to large parts or subassemblies, are beyond GACT. Some commenters
suggested that EPA should collect additional information on the types
of spray equipment and practices being used, coatings being employed,
and product rates at small sources. They claim that the requirements
for spraying automotive coatings do not necessarily carry over well to
the miscellaneous surface coating operations. Other commenters
supported the proposed standards as GACT.
Response: The EPA disagrees that spray booths and painter training
are beyond GACT for sources using coatings containing the target HAP.
The analyses performed in support of the proposed rule demonstrate that
painter training and filtered spray booths are both commonly employed
by miscellaneous surface coating sources of all sizes.
However, the EPA has revised the proposed rule such that painter
training and spray booths are only required for miscellaneous surface
coating operations that spray apply coatings that contain the target
HAP. Miscellaneous surface coating operations that do not use coatings
that contain the target HAP will not be subject to these requirements.
However, all motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating
operations would still be subject to the requirements of the final
rule.
F. Training Requirements
Comment: Several commenters felt that the training standards could
be interpreted to apply to all painters, and those standards should
only apply to spray coating operations. Painters in non-spray coating
operations should not be required to complete training. Other
commenters noted that training would not benefit the operators of
automated or robotic surface coating operations, and these operations
should be exempt from the training requirements.
Response: The rule has been clarified, as suggested by several
commenters, to clearly apply only to painters that spray apply coatings
using hand-held devices. Painters using brushes and rollers, and other
non-spray application methods, are not subject to the training
requirements. In addition, all automated and robotic surface coating
operations are not required to meet these requirements since these
operations are not considered part of the intended source category.
Automated operations are typically performed in a booth, are part of a
production line operation with similar, if not identical, parts, and
often result in high transfer efficiency.
Comment: One commenter suggested that painting is an art form not
possessed by everyone and a test and certification should not be used
to dictate who works as a painter. Another painter asked whether the
rule would include a grandfather clause that would exempt experienced
painters based on their length of time in the business or years
experience painting. One commenter suggested that retraining every five
years is not needed because of the daily experience of painting.
Response: The EPA agrees that spray painting is a skill that is not
easily mastered, and that shop owners will avoid hiring and keeping
poorly performing spray painters. However, information collected by EPA
in development of the proposed rule has shown that even experienced
spray painters can improve their transfer efficiency and reduce
emissions and paint consumption through appropriate training.
Therefore, the final rule retains the training requirement for all
spray painters at motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating
operations, and for all spray painters that use coatings containing the
target HAP at miscellaneous surface coating facilities.
The final rule will allow painters who have completed formal
training in the past five years to use that training to demonstrate
compliance. Refresher training is retained in the final rule since it
is important to ensure that painter techniques do not revert back to
those that were used before training, and also so painters can be
brought up to date on current technologies.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the rule should allow 180
days after hiring for new painters to be trained, instead of 60 days,
as well as for new painters at existing facilities.
Response: The EPA agrees and the rule has been revised to allow 180
days after hiring, or after completing a transfer within a facility to
a painting job, for new painters to complete the prescribed training.
Comment: Several commenters were concerned about the availability
of training and the suitability of training for the particular type of
surface coating that they perform, or the type of workforce they have.
Some commenters noted that their painters may not speak English, or be
able to perform well in a typical classroom setting or in a testing
environment. In these cases, a formal certification may be difficult
for their painters to achieve. One commenter noted that inmates
participating in prison industries could not be sent to outside
training. Other commenters were concerned that training should not be
limited to any one type of program or it could create a limited market
of providers and costs may not be affordable for small shops. They
suggested that the rule language should be more specific about the
criteria that would indicate a training program meets the minimum
requirements.
Response: The EPA agrees that training should not be limited to any
one provider or a small number of providers, and should be available
and affordable for all sizes and types of shops. The final rule
includes additional detail on the training requirements so that
alternative training programs can be developed that meet the minimum
requirements and meet the particular needs of different types of shops.
For example, the EPA recognizes that some larger employers may wish to
develop in-house training programs that are focused on the materials,
products, and procedures used at a particular facility.
The final rule does not specify that any one training provider or
program must be used. The final rule allows flexibility for the best
training environment and certification process that an owner or
operator can identify for their particular work site that meets the
requirements in the final rule. The training requirements have been
revised to allow for in-house training programs and for successful
completion of a training program to be certified by the owner of the
facility.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that if the EPA is expecting
industry to provide certification or training programs, the rule should
make provisions for a certifying agency or program certification
procedures. One commenter asked whether training programs would need to
meet a set of standards, and whether a manufacturer, trade school, or
consultant would be required to submit curriculum to EPA for prior
approval. Another commenter recommended that training programs used to
meet this regulation should be validated or certified by an independent
clearinghouse. The commenter suggested that EPA should delegate this
responsibility to a proven program that has a history of developing and
providing paint technician training, since the EPA does not have the
necessary painting experience to do this.
Response: The EPA does not believe that it is necessary to
establish or designate a body to certify or approve training programs
to comply with the requirements in the final rule. The final
[[Page 1752]]
rule includes sufficient detail on the training requirements so that
training programs can be developed that meet the minimum requirements.
The EPA feels that painters and the shops that employ them are the most
appropriate judge of different training programs, due primarily to the
economic benefit they can realize through good training. Since the shop
owner or the painter will need to absorb the initial cost of training
(even though it should represent a coating cost savings in the long
run), it will be up to painters and shops to identify and evaluate
training programs that best meet the requirements of the final rule and
which seem to be the best investment of their time and resources. To
the extent that additional guidance on the training requirements in the
final rule is needed, the EPA will work with all affected parties to
develop that guidance.
G. Spray Gun Requirements
Comment: Several commenters state that a number of spray coating
applications cannot be accomplished using HVLP, electrostatic guns, or
equivalent techniques. Two commenters stated that EPA determined during
the development of the NESHAP for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Facilities (40 CFR 63, subpart GG) and other major NESHAP rules that
high solids coatings cannot be applied using HVLP, or equivalent
methods.
Response: The final rule includes the same exemptions from the HVLP
requirements for aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities as
subpart GG. The rule was revised to exempt any situation that normally
requires the use of an airbrush or an extension on the spray gun to
properly reach limited access spaces; the application of coatings that
contain fillers that adversely affect atomization with HVLP spray guns,
and the application of coatings that normally have a dried film
thickness of less than 0.0013 centimeter (0.0005 in.). The technical
basis for these allowances for aerospace surface coating operations was
established in the development of subpart GG. Since there is no
technical difference between these aerospace surface coating operations
at area and major sources (aside from the relative size of these
operations), the EPA is including the same allowance in the final rule
as found in subpart GG.
Comment: Several commenters requested that airless and air-assisted
airless spray guns should be considered equally efficient and
equivalent to HVLP, and requested that EPA treat airless spray
equivalent to HVLP for the purpose of this rule. One commenter stated
that airless spray operations are very common for most miscellaneous
parts surface coating operations and should be considered as a viable
and authorized option.
Another commenter provided an example of a structural steel
facility that uses a high viscosity, high solids coating as being an
operation that could not employ HVLP spray guns. The commenter stated
that such operations generally use airless spray guns to apply high-
viscosity, high solids primers.
Another commenter stated that while HVLP spray guns and gravity fed
supply lines are well suited for the automotive refinishing industry,
pressure fed application equipment is best suited and typically used in
other miscellaneous sectors. Other sectors use coatings that have
characteristics much different from automotive coatings. Quite often,
these coatings are higher in viscosity because of higher solids
content, compared to automotive coatings.
Response: The final rule requires that miscellaneous surface
coating operations are only required to employ HVLP, or equivalent,
spray guns if they are spraying coatings that contain the target HAP.
Motor vehicle and mobile equipment surface coating operations must use
HVLP or equivalent spray guns for all surface coating. The rule was
also revised to allow airless and air-assisted airless spray guns as
alternatives to HVLP. Airless and air-assisted airless spray guns are
used in some applications instead of HVLP spray guns because they are
more suited to spraying higher solids coating, such as in the
fabrication of large structural steel components, and in applying
coatings to ships and other marine items. In these cases, HVLP spray
guns are not feasible because of the viscosity of the coating, and
airless and air assisted airless spray guns are the most efficient
means to spray apply these coatings.
H. Spray Booths
Comment: Several commenters stated that requiring spray booths is
not practical, realistic, or economically feasible for some facilities
performing coating on work pieces that are too large to fit in a booth
such as large structural metal work pieces, fixed equipment, structural
steel, and large mobile equipment.
Several commenters also stated that requiring spray booths for
these types of operations would make the rule more stringent than the
MACT rules for the corresponding industries. One commenter provides an
offshore drilling rig as an example of mobile equipment that is too
large for a spray booth. Two commenters requested that the rule include
an exemption for the surface coating of oversized parts.
Response: The proposed rule was revised so that it does not apply
to miscellaneous surface coating operations that do not spray apply
coatings that contain the target HAP. The proposed rule was also
revised to clarify that it does not apply to facility maintenance of
fixed equipment and architectural surface coating of stationary
structures.
The final rule has not been revised to specifically exempt the
surface coating of large objects from the spray booth requirement.
However, the surface coating of large objects would not be subject to
the requirements of the final rule if the coatings that are spray
applied do not contain the target HAP, the surface coating operation of
the object met the definition of facility maintenance, or the surface
coating was done using non-spray application methods. The EPA believes
that the surface coating situations described by the commenters
involving large objects all fall into at least one of these categories.
Therefore, they would not be subject to the requirement to use a spray
booth and an exemption for large objects is not specifically required
by the information provided by the commenters.
Comment: Three commenters expressed concern regarding the language
requiring negative pressure paint booths. The reason for this concern
is that for critical finishes, such as automotive surface coating,
negative pressure may cause airborne dust and dirt to be drawn into the
booth and mar the finish. As a result, downdraft paint booths used for
automotive surface coating are usually ventilated at slight positive
pressure so that contaminants are kept out of the booth, although door
seals and filtration systems are still used to protect air quality. One
commenter suggested that in applications that require a dust/dirt free
finish, and where the spray booth is totally sealed and the booth
control system utilizes an automatic pressure balance system, spray
booths should be allowed to operate at up to, but not more than, 0.05
inches water gauge positive pressure.
Response: The final rule was revised to allow for downdraft spray
booths that are balanced at slight positive air pressure and
incorporates the recommended language. The EPA observed several spray
booths of this configuration during site visits in the development of
this rule and agrees that with appropriate door seals and filtration
systems these booths are as
[[Page 1753]]
protective of the environment as booths operated at negative pressure.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the EPA has understated the
impacts of the proposed requirement to use a spray booth for all spray
finishing operations. The commenters noted that EPA did not assign any
costs to the requirement to use a spray booth because the EPA had
assumed that spray booths would already be required in order to comply
with OSHA standards for spray finishing operations under 29 CFR
1910.94(c). The commenters argued that OSHA standards require a spray
booth only if certain exposure conditions are met, and these exposure
conditions can be avoided with, for example, the use of waterborne
coatings or outdoor spraying operations. Other examples of spray
coating operations that can be conducted outside of a filtered spray
booth in compliance with OSHA include automotive undercoating, areas of
low coating use with adequate ventilation, powder coating, waterborne
products, and touch-up and repair coating.
Response: The EPA acknowledges that there are situations in which
OSHA does not require surface coating to be performed in a filtered
spray booth. That being noted, the rule was revised to clarify that the
scope of the source category does not include miscellaneous surface
coating operations if the coating being used does not contain the
target HAP, facility maintenance surface coating and other
architectural surface coating of stationary structures, powder coating
and the spray application of coatings from a spray gun with a cup size
equal to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces (89 cc). Given the clarified
scope of the surface coating operations that are subject to the spray
booth requirements in the final rule, the EPA believes that there is a
substantial overlap between the operations that would be performed in a
spray booth to comply with OSHA standards for spray finishing
operations and those that would be required to do so by this rule.
Therefore, the EPA does not believe that we have substantially
underestimated the cost of the final rule.
Comment: Two commenters pointed out that EPA did not address
enclosing automated or robotic spray systems in a spray booth. One
commenter stated that the costs for doing so could be very high and
requested that EPA exempt all fixed point automatic spray installations
from this rule.
Another commenter stated that the proposed rule did not include
language that addressed spray booth configurations with openings for
conveyor lines that carry parts through a booth. The commenter
suggested that the openings for conveyors would be equal to no more
than the area of the open face of a three-sided spray booth.
Response: The rule was revised to clarify that automated or robotic
spray operations were not considered within the scope of the source
category, as the source categories for surface coating were intended to
cover coating that is spray applied using hand-held devices.
The EPA acknowledges that miscellaneous surface coating operations
may be spray applying coatings that contain the target HAP using
conveyor line configurations, and the rule was revised to account for
openings needed on side walls and roofs of spray booths to accommodate
the conveyor lines.
Comment: One commenter noted that spot repairs on automobiles can
be performed using commercially available portable extraction systems.
One such system consists of a ring that is placed around the area to be
repaired. The ring is hollow and is attached to a ventilation system so
that air and overspray are drawn into the ring placed around the area
being repaired. The commenter asked whether this would be an acceptable
alternative to a spray booth for small spot repairs.
Response: The EPA reviewed the product information cited by the
commenter and agrees that portable or mobile enclosures and extraction
systems such as the one cited by the commenter are reasonable
alternatives to a full size paint booth for small repairs. The paint
booth requirements in the final rule have been revised to allow for the
use of portable enclosures and extraction systems that can be used to
enclose only the area being refinished in a spot repair. The enclosure
would still need to be ventilated so that air is drawn into and paint
overspray is captured by the enclosure, and it would also need to meet
the same requirements for spray booth filters as full size spray
booths.
I. Spray Booth Filters
Comment: Several commenters stated that requiring facilities to
demonstrate compliance by testing for filter efficiency places an undue
burden on any facility attempting to use a more efficient filter.
Vendor guarantees or specifications should be sufficient for
compliance.
Response: It was the intent of EPA that filter specifications or
filter performance data provided by the filter manufacturer would
suffice for the purpose of compliance in the proposed rule. The final
rule clarifies that records of manufacturer specifications or vendor
supplied or published data are sufficient for demonstrating compliance
with the filter efficiency requirement. Operators are not expected to
have to perform the test since it is usually done by the filter
vendors.
Comment: One commenter stated that waterwash filters were not
discussed in the proposed rule. The commenter requested that EPA assess
the acceptability of water wash booths as a control technology for
overspray.
Response: The final rule was revised to state that waterwash spray
booths will be acceptable for the purposes of complying with the rule
as long as they are used and maintained according to manufacturer
specifications and consistent with good air pollution control
practices. Although many waterwash spray booths have been replaced or
retrofitted with dry filters, there are some applications where
waterwash spray booths are still the most practical technology to
control paint overspray. Since EPA believes that properly operated and
maintained waterwash spray booths are nearly as efficient as required
by this rule for dry filters and it would not be cost-effective to
require retrofitting with dry filters, considering the potential
limited increase in capture efficiency, the final rule provides for the
use of waterwash spray booths, but requires that they be operated and
maintained according to the manufacturer's specifications.
Comment: One commenter stated that the paint overspray filter
criteria are inconsistent. The commenter requests that if 98 percent
overspray filter efficiency is the criteria, then it should be required
for all paint overspray filters. The commenter speculated that by
stating in the regulation that any fiberglass or polyester filter is
acceptable, the practice of using cheap, low efficiency furnace filters
could grow. The commenter suggested that specifying a minimum filter
efficiency of any medium would be more effective at reducing
particulate emissions.
Response: The final rule was revised so all spray booth dry
filters, regardless of media, are required to meet the 98 percent
efficiency standard. The rule was also revised to clarify that records
of manufacturer's specifications or filter performance data are
sufficient for demonstrating compliance with this performance level.
J. Spray Gun Washers
Comment: One commenter stated that the need for enclosed spray gun
washers may be over emphasized since the intent of the rule is to
prohibit the atomization of solvent through the gun into the air.
Although the proposed rule
[[Page 1754]]
indicates that spray equipment may be dismantled and cleaned in lieu of
a gun washer system, this alternative seems overshadowed by the gun
wash option and may be lost in the rule interpretation. Other
commenters reported that some commercially available enclosed gun
washers were less efficient and more difficult to use and maintain than
simply disassembling a spray gun and cleaning it by hand in a container
of solvent.
Two commenters stated that the rule should allow for equipment to
be cleaned by spraying a non-HAP containing solvent through the
applicator outside of an enclosed gun washer.
Response: The final rule was revised to clarify that if washing a
gun, an affected facility is prohibited from spraying cleaning solvent
through the gun in a way that creates an atomized mist that is not
captured. The intent of this requirement is to prevent the emission of
the target HAP that is in the paint residue that remains in the spray
gun. The EPA agrees that an enclosed gun washer is not needed to meet
this objective. To comply, you may, for example, clean a disassembled
gun by hand in a bucket or vat, flush solvent through the gun without
atomizing it and capturing the solvent in an enclosed container, or use
an enclosed manual or automatic gun washer. The final rule does not
require the use of an enclosed gun washer, but identifies an enclosed
gun washer as one compliance option in addition to the other options
suggested by the commenters.
K. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Compliance
Comment: A commenter felt that it would be more suitable for
sources to keep the MeCl minimization plan for paint stripping
operations on site rather than submitting it to the State and EPA. They
stated that States and EPA would not have the time or resources
necessary to review the plans, and that they were unsure what kind of
review/approval process should be used. Another commenter stated that
since the proposed standard imposes management practices rather than
emissions limits, it is not clear what aspect of their compliance
activity sources would need to report. They suggest that beyond the
initial report, the only reporting that should be necessary would be a
change in status relative to the threshold level for developing a MeCl
minimization plan.
Response: The development and implementation of the MeCl
minimization plan is designed to reduce MeCl usage and emissions at the
facility level. In the proposed rule, the requirement to submit the
MeCl minimization plan was included to ensure that there would be
oversight of facilities' plans.