[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 137 (Monday, July 19, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42885-42897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-16206]
[[Page 42885]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR-2002-0010, FRL-7786-9]
RIN 2060-AH69
National Emission Standards for Chromium Emissions From Hard and
Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 25, 1995, the EPA promulgated national emission
standards for chromium emissions from hard and decorative chromium
electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks under section 112 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). On June 5, 2002, we proposed amendments to the
rule. This action promulgates amendments to the emission limits,
definitions, compliance provisions and performance test requirements in
the standards for chromium emissions from hard and decorative chromium
electroplating and anodizing tanks.
DATES: Effective July 19, 2004.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Nos. OAR-2002-0010 and A-88-02. All documents in the docket are listed
in the EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 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: Mr. Phil Mulrine, U.S. EPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division, Metals
Group, (C439-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number
(919) 541-5289, electronic mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Entities potentially
regulated by this action include facilities engaged in hard chromium
electroplating, decorative chromium electroplating, and chromium
anodizing of metal or plastic parts either as a primary activity or as
an activity incidental to a larger fabricating or manufacturing
establishment. Regulated categories and entities include sources listed
under the North American Information Classification System (NAICS) U.S.
Industries code 332813, as well as sources listed under numerous
industry codes within industry subsector 332, titled ``Fabricated Metal
Product Manufacturing.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing................. 332813........... Electroplating and
anodizing
facilities.
Manufacturing................. 332.............. Establishments
primarily engaged in
both fabricating and
electroplating or
anodizing products
are classified in
the Manufacturing
sector according to
the product made.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this
action including both Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0010 and Docket ID No. A-
88-02. The official public docket consists of the documents
specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received,
and other information related to this action. All items may not be
listed under both docket numbers, so interested parties should inspect
both docket numbers to obtain all materials relevant to the final rule
amendments. Although a part of the official public docket, the public
docket does not include Confidential Business Information or other
information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. The
official public docket is available for public viewing at the EPA
Docket Center (Air Docket), EPA West, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is (202) 566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Electronic Access. Electronic versions of the documents filed under
Docket No. OAR-2002-0010 are available through EPA's electronic public
docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access
the index of the contents of the official public docket, and access
those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.
Once in the system, select ``search'' and key in the appropriate docket
identification number.
The EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in
EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed,
paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket
materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of
the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility
identified in this document.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's document also will be available on the
WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action
will be posted at www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg on EPA's Technology Transfer
Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules. The TTN provides information and technology exchange
in various areas of air pollution control. If more information
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of the final rule is available only by filing a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by September 17, 2004. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA,
only an objection to the final 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 the final rule amendments may not be
challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by
EPA to enforce the requirements.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
[[Page 42886]]
I. Background
II. Response to Comments
A. Use of Fume Suppressants for Controlling Chromium Emissions
from Hard Chromium Electroplating Tanks
B. Revised Surface Tension Limit When Measuring Surface Tension
with a Tensiometer
C. Emission Limit for Hard Chromium Electroplating Tanks
Equipped with Enclosing Hoods
D. Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tank
Definitions
E. Pressure Drop Monitoring Requirement for Composite Mesh Pads
III. 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 Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
On January 25, 1995, we promulgated national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for chromium emissions from hard and
decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks (60 FR
4963) under the authority of section 112 of the CAA. Due to recent
changes in control technology, additional information related to the
monitoring required by the NESHAP, and problems with implementing some
of the requirements of the NESHAP, we proposed amendments to the NESHAP
on June 5, 2002 (67 FR 38810). The proposed amendments to the NESHAP
addressed five technical areas: (1) The use of fume suppressants for
controlling chromium emissions from hard chromium electroplating tanks;
(2) a revised surface tension limit for decorative chromium
electroplating tanks when measuring surface tension with a tensiometer;
(3) an alternate emission limit for hard chromium electroplating tanks
equipped with enclosing hoods; (4) revised definitions for chromium
electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks; and (5) the pressure drop
monitoring requirement for composite mesh pad (CMP) control systems.
Based on recommendations made by the Common Sense Initiative (CSI)
Metal Finishing Subcommittee and research conducted by our Office and
Research and Development (ORD), we proposed allowing owners and
operators of hard chromium electroplating sources to meet a surface
tension limit as an alternative to the chromium emissions concentration
limit specified in the NESHAP. The data from recent emission tests
conducted on hard chromium electroplating tanks indicates that
compliance with the 0.015 milligram per dry standard cubic meter (mg/
dscm) emission limit can be achieved when the surface tension of the
electroplating tank bath is maintained below certain levels. Based on
those data, we proposed surface tension limits of 45 dynes per
centimeter (dynes/cm), when measured using a stalagmometer, and 35
dynes/cm, when measured using a tensiometer, for hard chromium
electroplating tanks.
The research performed by ORD and other data show that, when used
to measure the surface tension of chromium electroplating baths,
tensiometers typically read about 20 percent lower than surface tension
measurements of the same bath made using a stalagmometer. Because the
45 dynes/cm surface tension limit specified in the NESHAP for
decorative chromium electroplating tanks is based on measurements using
a stalagmometer, we proposed adding a separate surface tension limit of
35 dynes/cm when using a tensiometer to measure decorative chromium
electroplating bath surface tension.
Since the promulgation of the NESHAP, several chromium
electroplating facilities have installed state-of-the-art
electroplating tanks equipped with enclosing hoods. Because the
ventilation rates for these enclosed tanks are considerably lower than
ventilation rates for conventional hooding, some facilities with
enclosed tanks have had difficulty meeting the chromium emission
concentration limit specified in the NESHAP, even when emissions from
those tanks are well controlled. To rectify this situation, we proposed
an alternative mass emission rate limit for chromium electroplating
tanks equipped with enclosing hoods.
The NESHAP defined affected source as any chromium electroplating
tank or chromium anodizing tank located at a facility that performs
hard chromium electroplating, decorative chromium electroplating, or
chromium anodizing. We have become aware that, in at least one case,
this definition of affected source has resulted in the replacement of
an existing electroplating tank being treated as a reconstruction,
thereby triggering the emission limits for new sources. Because tank
replacement is considered routine maintenance, it was not our intent to
require more stringent emission limits when a facility replaced an
existing chromium electroplating tank. Therefore, we proposed an
amended definition of affected source that includes the peripheral
equipment, such as rectifiers and anodes, that is essential for the
chromium electroplating process.
Finally, we proposed an amendment to the requirement for
establishing the operating limit for any source controlled with a CMP.
In the promulgated NESHAP, owners and operators of affected sources
controlled with a CMP are required to maintain the pressure drop across
the CMP within 1 inch of water column (in. w.c.) of the pressure drop
established during the initial performance test. However, we have
recently become aware that the pressure drop across a CMP often exceeds
the pressure drop operating limit by more than 1 in. w.c. immediately
following the cleaning or replacement of pads. Consequently, we
proposed increasing the allowable range of pressure drops from 1 in. w.c. to 2 in. w.c.
We received a total of 16 public comments on the proposed
amendments to the NESHAP. Two of the 16 comments requested an extension
of the public comment period, 2 comments expressed general opposition
to the amendments, and the other 12 comments addressed the technical
issues associated with the proposed amendments. In addition, some
commenters suggested changes to other requirements of the NESHAP not
specifically addressed by the proposed amendments. Comments were
submitted by five State and local air pollution control agencies, one
environmental justice organization, four companies that perform
chromium electroplating, and one Federal agency. Three industry trade
associations submitted a joint set of comments, and two concerned
citizens also submitted comments.
After full and careful consideration of the comments, we are
promulgating the amendments as proposed with two minor clarifications.
Both clarifications pertain to the requirement for establishing
operating limits for the pressure drop across a CMP system. We have
added paragraph (iii) to Sec. 343(c)(1) of the final rule to indicate
that an owner or operator can establish a new operating limit for the
pressure drop across a CMP system by repeating the performance test. In
such cases, the new operating limit will be based on the pressure drop
established during the repeat performance test 2 in. w.c.
We also have added paragraph (iv) to Sec. 343(c)(1) to indicate that
the 2 in.
[[Page 42887]]
w.c. requirement for the pressure drop across a CMP system does not
apply during automatic washdown cycles of the CMP system.
II. Response to Comments
A. Use of Fume Suppressants for Controlling Chromium Emissions From
Hard Chromium Electroplating Tanks
Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed change is based on
a single emissions test, and that there are other data available,
collected from the same facility and from other facilities, that
contradict the findings of that test. To support that argument, the
commenter summarized the results from three studies of the
effectiveness of fume suppressants in controlling emissions from
chromium electroplating tanks that were performed under EPA's CSI. The
2000 CSI report included the results of three emission tests conducted
at a hard chromium electroplating facility. The results of the first
test were used as the basis for the proposed amendment. In the second
test, emissions were measured at higher surface tensions (32 to 34
dynes/cm) and higher process loading (3,973 to 5,652 ampere-hours (amp-
hr)); emissions of total chromium exceeded the NESHAP limit of 0.015
mg/dscm, but hexavalent chromium concentrations were within the 0.015
mg/dscm limit. In the third test, emissions were measured at similar
loading levels (4,700 to 5,000 amp-hr), but at even higher surface
tensions (32 to 36 dynes/cm). Although there were problems with the
test, the results indicated exceedances of the emission limit in two of
three runs. During a 1998 CSI study, emissions from a hard chromium
electroplating tank were below the 0.015 mg/dscm limit when surface
tensions were maintained between 24 and 29 dynes/cm using a fluorinated
chemical fume suppressant, which is referred to as a ``third
generation'' fume suppressant. In the other study, six tests were
performed on hard chromium electroplating tanks that contained fume
suppressants. For the five valid tests, the results of two tests
indicated compliance with the emission limit when surface tensions were
23 and 28 dynes/cm, respectively; for the other three tests, chromium
emissions exceeded the 0.015 mg/dscm limit when surface tensions were
maintained at 22, 32, and 41 dynes/cm, respectively.
Response: We have reviewed the additional test data referenced by
the commenter, and we disagree with the commenter that other available
data contradict the results of the test that we used as the basis for
the proposed amendment. The additional studies that the commenter
references present the results of 17 emission tests on hard chromium
electroplating tanks. Two emission tests were conducted in May 1996 at
the Diamond Chrome Plating, Incorporated, (Diamond) facility in Howell,
Michigan. The tests were performed on five hard chromium electroplating
tanks that were exhausted to a common duct. Each test consisted of
three 2-hour runs using Method 306. During the first test, the surface
tensions of the electroplating solutions in the five tanks ranged from
38 to 44 dynes/cm and averaged 41 dynes/cm. The total chromium emission
concentration for that test was 0.0062 mg/dscm, and the hexavalent
chromium concentration for the test was 0.0048 mg/dscm, both of which
are far below the emission limit of 0.015 mg/dscm. During the other
test, foam was discovered in the exhaust hood. Therefore, the results
of that test are not valid.
Six emission tests were conducted during July and August 1997 at
the Modern Hard Chrome Company (Modern) facility in Warren, Michigan.
Three tests were performed on each of two hard chromium electroplating
tanks. Each test consisted of three 2-hour Method 306 runs. For each
tank, one of the tests was conducted without the addition of a fume
suppressant to the electroplating bath. For the other four tests, a
wetting agent fume suppressant was added to the electroplating bath,
and the average surface tensions of the electroplating solutions ranged
from 22 to 41 dynes/cm. The testing demonstrated compliance with the
0.015 mg/dscm emission limit in only one of the four controlled tests.
However, the concentrations of total chromium varied considerably over
the four tests, and the results were inconsistent with the other
available data on the effectiveness of fume suppressants in controlling
emissions from hard chromium electroplating tanks. Whereas one test
indicated total chromium emissions to be 0.17 mg/dscm at a surface
tension of 32 dynes/cm, another test conducted at a significantly
higher surface tension of 41 dynes/cm indicated a much lower total
chromium concentration of 0.050 mg/dscm. The other two tests were
conducted at surface tensions of 22 to 23 dynes/cm. In one test, the
total chromium concentration was 0.011 mg/dscm, but for the other test,
the total chromium concentration was determined to be 0.028 mg/dscm.
These variations are a strong indication of problems with the testing
and/or source operation. However, we have been unable to obtain a
complete copy of the report for this test to corroborate the test
results and ensure that there were no problems with process operations
or test procedures that could bias the results of the tests.
Consequently, we do not consider the results for the tests at Modern to
be valid.
Between September 1997 and January 1998, six emission tests were
conducted at the Hohman Plating and Manufacturing (Hohman) facility in
Dayton, Ohio. The tests were all conducted on the same hard chromium
electroplating tank. Five of the tests consisted of six 2-hour test
runs using Method 306; the other test consisted of four 2-hour Method
306 runs. One of the tests was conducted under baseline conditions,
without the addition of a fume suppressant to the electroplating
solution. For the other five tests, a wetting agent fume suppressant
was added to the tank, and the electroplating bath surface tensions
were maintained between 24.5 and 29.0 dynes/cm. The total chromium
concentrations in the exhaust for the five controlled tests ranged from
0.0017 to 0.0050 mg/dscm and were all well below the emission limit of
0.015 mg/dscm.
Three emission tests were conducted at the Acme Hard Chrome,
Incorporated, (Acme) facility in Alliance, Ohio. The tests took place
in August 1998, October 1998, and January 1999 and were conducted on
three hard chromium electroplating tanks that are exhausted to a common
control system. Each test consisted of three 2-hour test runs using
Method 306. The results of the first test were used as the basis for
the proposed amendment. The surface tensions in the tanks during the
first test ranged from 28 to 30 dynes/cm, and the total and hexavalent
chromium emission concentrations for the test were 0.0034 mg/dscm and
0.0030 mg/dscm, respectively. In the second test, the surface tensions
in the tanks ranged from 32 to 34 dynes/cm. An error in the test report
indicated the total chromium concentration to be 0.018 mg/dscm.
However, the corrected concentration of total chromium was actually
0.0092 mg/dscm, which is well below the 0.015 mg/dscm emission limit.
The hexavalent chromium concentration for the second test was 0.0079
mg/dscm. In the third test, foam was discovered in the exhaust hood, so
the results of that test are not considered to be valid.
To summarize, we were able to obtain the results of 14 emission
tests on hard chromium electroplating tanks controlled with wetting
agent fume suppressants. Eight of the 14 tests provided valid results
of fume suppressant performance. In all eight valid emission tests, the
total chromium
[[Page 42888]]
concentration was determined to be less than the 0.015 mg/dscm emission
limit for hard chromium electroplating tanks. Therefore, we have
concluded that the available data do support the proposed amendment to
allow hard chromium electroplating sources to comply with a surface
tension limit as an alternative to the chromium emission concentration
of 0.015 mg/dscm.
Comment: One commenter disagreed that the data, which were used as
the basis for the proposed change, are conclusive. The commenter
pointed out that the emission test was conducted at low production
levels (227 to 1,405 amp-hr). Therefore, he believes that the test data
are not representative of normal hard chromium electroplating
operations.
Response: We agree with the commenter that the emission test that
was used as the basis for the proposed amendment was conducted under
relatively low process loads. However, the results from other tests on
hard chromium electroplating tanks demonstrate that wetting agent fume
suppressants are effective in controlling chromium emissions at higher
process loads. For example, in the tests conducted at Acme, compliance
was demonstrated at a process load of 5,000 amp-hr, and compliance was
demonstrated at a process rate of 13,480 amp-hr for the tests at
Diamond. These process loads are more typical of the hard chromium
electroplating industry than the process load for the test that was
used as the basis for the proposed amendment.
Comment: One commenter pointed out that the proposed amendment is
based on tests using a ``new generation'' of fume suppressants,
implying that other fume suppressants on the market may not perform as
well. A second commenter concurred with this comment. The commenter
pointed out that the 1998 CSI study indicates that some fume
suppressants may be more effective than others in controlling
emissions. However, the proposed amendment does not specify the type of
fume suppressants that can be used in hard chromium electroplating
tanks. The two commenters requested that the final rule specify the
types of fume suppressants acceptable for use on hard chromium
electroplating tanks that would comply with the proposed surface
tension limits.
Response: Based on the available data, we have concluded that
chromium emission concentrations from hard chromium electroplating
tanks are primarily a function of the electroplating solution surface
tension when wetting agent fume suppressants are used as the only
emission control. If the surface tension is maintained below the
proposed levels (i.e., 35 dynes/cm when measured by tensiometer and 45
dynes/cm when measured by stalagmometer), the concentration of total
chromium in the exhaust will be no greater than the 0.015 mg/dscm
emission limit for hard chromium electroplating tanks. Furthermore, the
available data do not indicate that emission control levels are a
function of the type of fume suppressant used in the tank solution, as
suggested by the commenters. We did indicate in the preamble to the
June 5, 2002 proposal that the amendment was based on a test conducted
using a new generation of fume suppressants. However, the term ``new
generation'' actually was meant to apply to the performance of fume
suppressants with respect to product quality (e.g., the relative degree
of pitting in the finished plate) and not to the effectiveness of those
fume suppressants in reducing emissions from chromium electroplating
tanks. Sources will be in compliance with the emission limits provided
the surface tension is maintained at or below the proposed limits,
regardless of the type of fume suppressant used.
Comment: One commenter stated that numerous factors affect
emissions from chromium electroplating tanks, such as temperature,
chromium concentration, and amperage applied, and it is not possible to
account for all of those factors in a single emissions test. Another
commenter stated that other factors that affect emissions from chromium
electroplating tanks should be evaluated, including the degree of air
agitation, bath temperature, collection efficiency, mist particle size,
tank freeboard, and chromium dust levels in the ductwork and around the
facility. The first commenter requested that we consider all of the
available data and proceed with the amendment as proposed only if the
data are conclusive. If the data are not conclusive, additional testing
should be performed before a final decision is made to promulgate the
amendments. Another commenter agreed that the data that we considered
in proposing the amendment are not conclusive, and additional testing
is warranted before allowing the use of fume suppressants as the only
means of emissions control on hard chromium electroplating tanks.
Response: Since proposing the amendments, we have evaluated the
results of several other emission tests that demonstrate the
performance of wetting agent fume suppressants in controlling chromium
emissions from hard chromium electroplating tanks. Those tests were
conducted under a range of design and operating conditions, including
type of fume suppressant, process load, and tank size and
configuration. Although measurements of the other parameters listed by
the commenters (e.g., bath temperature, tank freeboard, degree of
agitation) are not available for comparison, we expect that there were
variations in those parameters for the electroplating tanks tested.
Despite those variations, the data from all eight of the valid emission
tests clearly demonstrate a strong relationship between surface tension
and chromium emissions. When the surface tension is maintained at
relatively low levels (below 35 dynes/cm), chromium emissions are below
0.015 mg/dscm. Therefore, we have concluded that the effects of those
other design and operating parameters on chromium emissions are
secondary to surface tension. Furthermore, an industry expert concurred
with this conclusion that surface tension is the primary factor in
determining chromium emissions from hard chromium electroplating baths.
Comment: Three commenters opposed the amendment because it would
allow existing add-on emission controls to be removed from hard
chromium electroplating tanks. The commenters believe that existing
controls are necessary to protect public health given the toxicity of
hexavalent chromium and the proximity of many hard chromium
electroplating shops to residences. One of the commenters pointed out
that most hard chromium electroplaters already have purchased and
installed add-on emission controls, so continuing to require add-on
controls would not result in additional control costs for existing
sources.
Response: We recognize that, under the proposed amendment, owners
and operators of hard chromium electroplating tanks that choose to
comply with the proposed surface tension limit could remove existing
add-on emission controls. However, the available data on the
performance of wetting agent fume suppressants demonstrate that control
of chromium emissions equivalent to the level achieved by add-on
emission controls can be achieved by maintaining the electroplating
bath surface tension below the limits specified in today's amendments.
With respect to the public health risks associated with emissions of
hexavalent chromium emissions, we have begun evaluating the residual
risk for the chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing source
category, as required under section 112(f)(2) of the
[[Page 42889]]
CAA. If our assessment indicates that the risk due to emissions from
the facilities within this source category is unacceptable, we will
consider additional measures for mitigating that risk. We agree with
the commenter that most hard chromium electroplating facilities have
purchased and installed add-on emission controls to comply with the
NESHAP. However, we do not feel compelled to require facilities to
continue to operate those controls because maintaining electroplating
tank solution surface tensions below the proposed limits will ensure
adequate control of chromium emissions from those sources.
Comment: One commenter pointed out that the proposed amendment
would eliminate the requirement for hard chromium electroplating
operations to conduct emission tests to demonstrate compliance with
emission limits. The commenter believes that emission tests are
necessary for determining compliance with the NESHAP.
Response: We agree that hard chromium electroplating facilities
would not be required to conduct performance tests under the proposed
amendment if the facility owner or operator decided to comply with the
proposed surface tension limits. However, the data on the performance
of wetting agent fume suppressants demonstrate that compliance with the
0.015 mg/dscm chromium emission limit will be ensured if surface
tension is maintained at or below 35 dynes/cm as measured by a
tensiometer, or 45 dynes/cm as measured using a stalagmometer.
Consequently, performance tests are not necessary when wetting agent
type fume suppressants are maintained below the proposed limits.
Furthermore, not requiring performance tests helps to ease the burden
on small businesses that are subject to the final rule.
Comment: Two commenters summarized the results of a study performed
by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District and the California Air
Resources Board in the Barrio Logan community of San Diego County
(Barrio Logan Study) from December 3, 2001, to May 12, 2002. During the
study, a total of 431 ambient samples were collected at six locations
in the vicinity of two electroplating facilities: a decorative chromium
electroplating facility and a hard chromium electroplating facility.
The study indicated that chromium emissions from the decorative
chromium electroplating shop, which used fume suppressants for emission
control, resulted in high levels of ambient hexavalent chromium
concentrations. The same study also showed that emissions from the
adjacent hard chromium electroplating shop, which used an add-on
control, were much lower and did not contribute significantly to
ambient hexavalent chromium concentrations. The study included
estimates of cancer risk, based on 70-year exposures to the average
hexavalent chromium concentrations measured during the 5-month study
period. The risk assessment indicated that the average cancer risk
ranged from 23 to 114 per million, depending on the location, and the
overall average risk for all locations was 63 per million. The
commenters stated that we should consider the results and implications
of that study before proceeding with an amendment that would allow fume
suppressants as the only means of emission control for hard chromium
electroplating tanks. One of the commenters also requested that the
study reports be included in the docket for the final rule.
Response: We have begun evaluating the residual risk associated
with the chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing source
category, as required under section 112(f)(2) of the CAA. The
implications of the Barrio Logan Study would best be addressed within
the context of residual risk, and we intend to give the data and
results from that study full consideration as we evaluate the residual
risk for the chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing source
category. We cannot argue with the conclusion of the Barrio Logan Study
that emissions from the decorative chromium electroplating shop were
the main contributor to high ambient concentrations of chromium.
However, the data do not support the conclusion that emissions from the
decorative electroplating shop were higher simply because the facility
used a fume suppressant and did not have add-on emission controls.
Wetting agent fume suppressants are an effective means of emission
control when they are used properly, but there are indications that the
decorative chromium facility that was the focus of the Barrio Logan
Study was not using their fume suppressant properly. Measurements made
by the local air pollution control agency indicate that the decorative
chromium electroplating facility was not in compliance with the surface
tension limit of 45 dynes/cm during at least part of 40 of the 45 days
surface tensions were recorded. This lack of adequate control of
surface tension certainly contributed to the high ambient
concentrations of chromium. In addition, there are indications that
other factors, such as poor housekeeping practices, may also have
contributed significantly to the ambient chromium concentrations.
B. Revised Surface Tension Limit When Measuring Surface Tension With a
Tensiometer
Comment: Five commenters opposed the proposed amendment that would
specify a lower maximum surface tension when the surface tension is
measured using a tensiometer. One commenter noted that the proposed
limit for tensiometer-measured surface tension is based on a single
emission test, and the data from that test do not support the proposed
surface tension limit of 35 dynes/cm. The commenter stated that surface
tensions ranged from 28 to 30 dynes/cm during the test. Although the
data demonstrated that the chromium emission limit was achieved at
surface tensions below 30 dynes/cm, the data cannot be extrapolated to
35 dynes/cm. At the proposed surface tension limit of 35 dynes/cm,
emission concentrations are very likely to be higher than the
concentrations measured during the emission test in question. There are
no data that demonstrate that emission concentrations will be below the
chromium concentration limit of 0.015 mg/dscm when surface tensions are
35 dynes/cm, as measured using a tensiometer.
Response: We have obtained data from eight emission tests that
measured chromium emissions from hard chromium electroplating tanks
that were controlled only with wetting agent fume suppressants. In two
of those tests, emissions were quantified at bath surface tensions of
32 dynes/cm or higher. The second Acme test was conducted at surface
tensions of 32 to 34 dynes/cm, and the resulting concentrations of
total chromium (0.0092 mg/dscm) and hexavalent chromium (0.0079 mg/
dscm) were well under the 0.015 mg/dscm emission limit. Although we
would expect the emission concentrations to be slightly higher if the
test had been conducted at a surface tension of 35 dynes/cm, it is very
unlikely the concentrations would have exceeded 0.015 mg/dscm (i.e.,
would have been more than 50 percent higher) at the marginally higher
surface tension. In the emission test performed at Diamond, the
electroplating tank solution surface tension was 41 dynes/cm, and the
concentrations in the tank exhaust were 0.0061 mg/dscm for total
chromium and 0.0048 mg/dscm for hexavalent chromium, both of which also
are well below the 0.015 mg/dscm
[[Page 42890]]
emission limit. This test demonstrated that, in some cases, the
emission limit can be met even with a surface tension in excess of 35
dynes/cm. In the other six emission tests, surface tensions were below
30 dynes/cm and the measured emissions of chromium were well below the
0.015 mg/dscm emission limit. The results of all eight tests, and the
two with the higher surface tensions in particular, demonstrate that
compliance with the hard chromium electroplating tank emission limit
will be achieved when surface tensions are maintained at or below the
proposed limit of 35 dynes/cm.
Comment: One commenter stated that there are no data that
demonstrate that chromium emissions from hard chromium electroplating
operations will be below the chromium concentration limit of 0.015 mg/
dscm when a stalagmometer indicates the surface tension is 45 dynes/cm.
The commenter stated that additional testing should be performed before
establishing a surface tension limit to ensure that chromium emission
concentrations are achieved on a consistent basis when surface tensions
are maintained below the limits of 35 and 45 dynes/cm for tensiometers
and stalagmometers, respectively.
Response: Although the proposed surface tension limit for hard
chromium electroplating tanks was based on measurements made using a
tensiometer and not a stalagmometer, the data support a 45 dynes/cm
limit for stalagmometer-based surface tension measurements. The test
data clearly show that when surface tension, as measured using a
tensiometer, is no more than 35 dynes/cm, the chromium emission
concentration is no more than 0.015 mg/dscm. When simultaneous surface
tension measurements of the same electroplating solution using both
types of instruments are compared, the data indicate that the
measurement differential is at least 10 dynes/cm when a stalagmometer
indicates the surface tension to be 45 dynes/cm. In other words, if a
stalagmometer measures the surface tension to be 45 dynes/cm, a
tensiometer would measure the surface tension of the same
electroplating bath to be no more than 35 dynes/cm. Therefore, when a
tensiometer measures a surface tension of 35 dynes/cm or less, the
chromium emission concentration meets the emission limit of 0.015 mg/
dscm. We have concluded that the data also support the 45 dynes/cm
limit for surface tensions measured using a stalagmometer.
Comment: One commenter stated that if hard chromium electroplating
facilities are allowed to comply with the NESHAP by maintaining surface
tensions below the limits of 35 dynes/cm and 45 dynes/cm, those
facilities should be required to conduct an emission test to
demonstrate compliance with the emission limits. Regardless of the
instrument used to measure surface tension, the emission tests should
be conducted over a range of operating conditions. Another commenter
stated that when a fume suppressant is used with an add-on control
device, the facility should be required to conduct an emissions test
and establish an operating limit for surface tension.
Response: We disagree with the commenters that an emission test
should be required when a hard chromium electroplating facility chooses
to comply with the surface tension limits of 35 dynes/cm by tensiometer
or 45 dynes/cm by stalagmometer. The test data clearly show that when
the surface tension is maintained below these surface tension limits,
chromium emission concentrations are no more than 0.015 mg/dscm.
Therefore, emission tests are unnecessary in such cases. We also
recognize that chromium electroplating tank operating parameters differ
from facility to facility. However, surface tension has a more
significant impact on chromium emissions than any of other chromium
electroplating tank operating parameters because surface tension
directly impacts the specific mechanism by which chromium is emitted;
that is, the bursting of bubbles at the surface of the electroplating
tank solution. The other operating parameters may affect how much fume
suppressant is needed to reduce the surface tension to a level at or
below 35 dynes/cm, but surface tension has the greatest impact on
emission levels. An industry expert also has concurred with this
conclusion that surface tension is the primary factor in determining
chromium emissions from hard chromium electroplating baths. Therefore,
we have concluded that there is no need to measure emissions over a
range of operating parameters, as suggested by the commenter, provided
the surface tension is maintained below the proposed limits.
Regarding the comment about establishing an operating limit for
surface tension when an add-on control device is used with a fume
suppressant, Sec. 343(c)(5) of the NESHAP specifies a provision for
allowing an affected facility to establish an operating limit for
surface tension and subsequently monitor surface tension to demonstrate
continuing compliance. This provision addresses the commenter's
concern. However, as stated previously in this response, an emission
test is not necessary to show initial compliance with the emission
limit provided the surface tension is maintained below the 35 dynes/cm
and 45 dynes/cm limits for tensiometer and stalagmometer measurements,
respectively.
Comment: One commenter stated that the differences in surface
tension observed by ORD when comparing measurements made using a
tensiometer and a stalagmometer indicate that there is a serious
measurement error associated with one or both of the analytical methods
used in those instruments. Therefore, it is inappropriate for EPA to
establish limits on surface tension using those data. The commenter
recommended that we either determine the nature of the flaws in the two
analytical methods or obtain additional data that demonstrate the
relationship between surface tension and emission concentrations.
Response: Neither tensiometers nor stalagmometers measure surface
tension directly. Tensiometers measure the force on a plate or ring as
it is pulled from the surface of the liquid, and stalagmometers use a
drop weight method, in which the number and weight of drops of the
liquid are compared to those of a reference liquid. Both instruments
measure indicators of surface tension. Because the indicators measured
(force and drop weight) are different, stalagmometers and tensiometers
may produce different values for the surface tension of a solution. We
disagree that this measurement differential indicates a measurement
error. We acknowledge that there is a difference in how the two
instruments characterize surface tension, and we have addressed that
difference in today's final rule by specifying a different surface
tension limit for stalagmometers and for tensiometers. We are confident
that the emission limit of 0.015 mg/dscm is being met when the surface
tension is below 35 dynes/cm, as measured with a tensiometer, or 45
dynes/cm, as measured with a stalagmometer.
Comment: Two commenters disagreed with our conclusion that the
available data support a 10 dynes/cm differential between surface
tensions measured with a tensiometer and with a stalagmometer. One
commenter pointed out that the study, which was the basis for the
proposed amendment, shows that surface tension measurements using the
two instruments varied by as much as 33 dynes/cm when measuring a known
surface tension of approximately 40 dynes/cm. The commenter also stated
that the same study shows that other factors, such as temperature and
stalagmometer drop rate, can affect
[[Page 42891]]
surface tension measurements significantly. One commenter stated that
the measurement difference between the two instruments is not linear
but highly variable, with the greatest variations in the range of 30 to
50 dynes/cm. The commenter noted that, within this range, the
measurement differences for the two instruments is much greater than 10
dynes/cm. The commenter also stated that the available data indicate
that a reduction in surface tension from 45 dynes/cm to approximately
30 dynes/cm can affect emission rates by an order of magnitude. The
commenter stated that, in view of the uncertainties in the data, the
NESHAP should require the use of only one type of instrument, a
stalagmometer, for monitoring surface tension in plating tanks. Both
commenters believe that additional data must be collected and evaluated
to determine how measurements made by tensiometers and stalagmometers
differ. One of the commenters also stated that his agency is collecting
additional data and can provide the data to us.
Response: We agree with the commenters that the available data
indicate that the difference in surface tension measurements between
tensiometers and stalagmometers is not 10 dynes/cm under all
conditions, but varies depending on the surface tension of the liquid,
the type of fume suppressant used, and possibly other factors. The data
indicate that within the range of surface tensions characteristic of
chromium electroplating baths that include wetting agents,
stalagmometer measurements of surface tension are higher than
measurements made using a tensiometer. For surface tensions in the
range of the proposed surface tension limit of 35 dynes/cm for
tensiometer measurements, stalagmometers can indicate surface tensions
that are 20 to 30 dynes/cm higher. For surface tensions of 25 to 30
dynes/cm, which represents the lower end of the range of surface
tensions typically found in chromium electroplating tanks, the
difference in measurements between tensiometers and stalagmometers is
closer to 10 dynes/cm. In addition, other data that we have obtained
since proposing the amendments to the NESHAP also support the 10 dynes/
cm differential between tensiometers and stalagmometers.
For the proposed amendment, we selected the surface tension limit
of 35 dynes/cm for tensiometer measurements because the limit is based
on measurements made using a tensiometer, and the data support that
surface tension limit. On the other hand, the surface tension limit of
45 dynes/cm, which is specified in the NESHAP for decorative chromium
electroplating tanks, is based on measurements of surface tensions
using a stalagmometer. Thus, we based the surface tension limits for
tensiometers and stalagmometers on two different sets of data.
We agree that the data from direct comparisons of measurements
using the two types of instruments show a larger differential at
surface tensions greater than 30 dynes/cm. However, if a stalagmometer
indicates the surface tension is in compliance (i.e., no greater than
45 dynes/cm), the surface tension measured using a tensiometer would
certainly be no greater than 35 dynes/cm. Consequently, the 10 dynes/cm
differential is appropriate.
We disagree with the suggestion by one of the commenters that the
NESHAP should allow the use only of stalagmometers for demonstrating
compliance with the surface tension limit. Many chromium electroplating
facilities currently use tensiometers to monitor surface tension.
Furthermore, the proposed amendment to allow owners and operators of
affected hard chromium electroplating tanks to meet a surface tension
limit rather than an emission limit is based on surface tension
measurements using a tensiometer. Therefore, we do not want to prohibit
the use of tensiometers for surface tension measurements.
C. Emission Limit for Hard Chromium Electroplating Tanks Equipped With
Enclosing Hoods
Comment: One commenter supported the proposed mass emission limit
as an alternative to the emission concentration limit for enclosed hard
chromium electroplating tanks. However, the commenter believes emission
rates increase when enclosing hoods are used because the hoods increase
capture efficiency. He also pointed out that the use of enclosing hoods
is recommended for worker safety.
Response: We appreciate the commenter's support for the proposed
amendment. We also agree with the commenter's statement that enclosing
hoods increase capture efficiency, and we concur with the commenter's
statement that enclosing hoods provide an added benefit by reducing
worker exposure to electroplating tank emissions. However, we disagree
with the commenter's statement that overall emissions are greater when
an enclosed hard chromium electroplating tank is used. It is true that
the lower ventilation rates that are characteristic of electroplating
tanks with enclosing hoods may result in increases in emission
concentrations due to the introduction of less dilution air into the
exhaust stream. However, when an enclosing hood is used, actual mass
emission rates (e.g., pounds per hour) typically are no more than 50
percent of the mass emission rate for a comparable electroplating tank
with conventional hooding and ventilation rates. Therefore, enclosing
hoods actually achieve a net decrease in electroplating tank emissions.
D. Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tank Definitions
Comment: One commenter supported the proposed change to the
definition of affected source. However, the commenter suggested that
the definition of affected source be expanded to include ventilation
equipment.
Response: As indicated in Sec. 63.2 of the general provisions to
40 CFR part 63, we have defined stationary source in terms of
emissions. Any equipment, peripheral device, or facility that is to be
considered either a source or part of a source must contribute to the
generation of emissions of a regulated pollutant. In most
installations, ventilation systems do not themselves contribute to
emissions. In the case of chromium electroplating, ventilation systems
do not generate emissions but capture and collect emissions from the
source and direct the emissions to a control system or to a stack for
release to the atmosphere. Therefore, we do not agree with the
commenter that the definition of affected source should be expanded to
include ventilation equipment.
Comment: One commenter supported the proposed change to the
definition of affected source but stated that the proposed definition
is still too vague and may be interpreted to include processes
immediately prior to and after the plating operation. Therefore, the
final rule should list examples of what is and is not ancillary
equipment. The commenter suggested that the ancillary equipment that
should be included in cost analyses should consist only of the
equipment necessary for the electroplating process to function, or, in
other words, equipment required for electroplating while the rectifier
is supplying energy to the anode. In addition, the commenter requested
that the final rule also clarify that tanks, which qualify neither as
anodizing tanks nor as electroplating tanks, are not subject to the
NESHAP.
Response: We agree with the commenter's remark that the summary of
the amendments in the preamble to the proposal could be misleading
because the summary did not
[[Page 42892]]
adequately define what constitutes an affected source. However, the
intent of the summary is to provide an overview of the amendments, not
to provide all of the details. The language presented in the final rule
is the basis for determining compliance, and clearly defines what we
consider to be part of an affected source. For chromium electroplating,
the proposed amendment would expand the definition of affected source
to include rectifiers, anodes, heat exchanger equipment, circulation
pumps, and air agitation systems. It would be difficult to develop a
comprehensive list that includes all of the equipment that could be
interpreted to be part of the electroplating process, and such a list
might complicate the final rule unnecessarily. Therefore, we have
decided against expanding the definition of affected source further, as
suggested by the commenter.
Concerning the commenter's request that we clarify that process
tanks, other than electroplating and anodizing tanks, are not subject
to the final rule, we point out that Sec. 63.340, which addresses the
applicability of the NESHAP, lists several types of process tanks
associated with chromium electroplating that are not subject to the
NESHAP. Section 63.340(c) of the final rule already addresses the
commenter's concern.
E. Pressure Drop Monitoring Requirement for Composite Mesh Pads
Comment: Five commenters supported the proposed change to the
operating limit for the pressure drop across a CMP system from 1 in. w.c. to 2 in. w.c. However, one commenter
does not believe that the pressure drop requirement for CMP systems
applies ``* * * at all times * * *,'' as stated in the preamble to the
proposed amendments. The commenter explained that during automatic
washdown cycles currently required by the rule as proposed and
recommended by CMP manufacturers, the pressure drop across a CMP system
may exceed the 2 in. w.c. operating limit for a brief time.
The commenter believes the proposed amendment was intended to apply to
changes in pressure drop following comprehensive cleaning of mesh pads
and not to short-term changes in pressure drop associated with
automatic washdown cycles. The commenter believes the final rule should
clarify that the pressure drop requirement does not apply to these
automatic washdown cycles. The commenter also provided suggested rule
language to that effect.
Response: We agree with the commenter that the proposed change was
not meant to apply during the automatic washdown cycles of a CMP
system. We consider automatic washdowns to be part of the normal
operation of such control systems, whereas the proposed amendment was
intended to apply to periodic maintenance that entails removing mesh
pads and cleaning or replacing the pads. Although we stated in the
preamble to the proposal that the pressure drop requirement applies ``*
* * at all times * * *,'' the final rule clearly specifies that
compliance is determined through a daily measurement of pressure drop
across the CMP system. Owners or operators of affected sources that are
controlled with a CMP system can determine when to measure the pressure
drop and, presumably, they would choose to take pressure drop
measurements outside of automatic washdown cycles. However, to avoid
any further misunderstanding of this requirement, we have indicated in
the final rule that the pressure drop requirement does not apply during
automatic washdown cycles.
Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed amendment specifies
that the 2 in. w.c. pressure drop requirement would apply
during the initial performance test, but does not address the retesting
of an affected source. The commenter believes that if a source is
retested and shown to be in compliance, the affected facility should be
allowed to establish a new operating limit at 2 in. w.c. of
the pressure drop measured during that subsequent performance test.
Response: We agree with the commenter and have written the final
rule amendments to reflect this change. The final rule indicates that
the affected facilities may establish a new operating limit at 2 in. w.c. of the pressure drop measured during subsequent
performance tests.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that the final rule amendments do not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' because none of the listed criteria
applies to this action. Consequently, this action was not submitted to
OMB for review under Executive Order 12866.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
The final rule amendments provide to owners and operators of affected
sources alternatives to existing requirements. The existing
alternatives will still be available for those owners and operators who
choose to use them. The final rule amendments will increase the
flexibility of compliance with the current regulations without imposing
any additional recordkeeping requirements. The OMB has previously
approved the information collection requirements specified in the final
NESHAP under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501, et seq. and assigned the OMB control number 2060-0327.
A copy of the information collection request (ICR) support document
prepared by EPA for the approved information collection requirements
(ICR No. 1611.02) may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at U.S. EPA,
Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division
(MD-2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; by e-
mail at [email protected]; or by calling (202) 566-1672. You may also
download a copy from the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. Include
the ICR and/or OMB control number in any correspondence.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically
authorized by section 112 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information
submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is
safeguarded according to Agency procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2,
subpart B.
[[Page 42893]]
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, or any
other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administrations' regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C.
Sections 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may conclude that a rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a
positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the
rule. The final rule amendments will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities because the amendments
only provide options that are designed to provide increased flexibility
to affected facilities. The final rule amendments will not impose any
additional requirements on any small entities and are expected to
relieve the burden for some small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA's regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
The EPA has determined that today's final rule amendments do not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Thus, the final rule
amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205
of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that today's final rule
amendments contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments because the amendments contain no
requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon
them. Therefore, today's final rule amendments are not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
The final rule amendments do not have federalism implications. The
amendments will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the
affected facilities is owned or operated by State governments, and the
final rule amendments will not supersede State regulations that are
more stringent. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final
rule amendments.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' The final rule
[[Page 42894]]
amendments do not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175. The amendments will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
the final rule amendments.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives that EPA considered.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. Today's final rule
amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the
amendments are based on technology performance and not on health or
safety risks. No children's risk analysis was performed because no
alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at
a reasonable cost. Furthermore, the final rule amendments have been
determined not to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
Today's final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because the amendments are not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through annual reports to the OMB, with explanations when an
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
Today's final rule amendments do not involve technical standards
other than those standards already specified in the final rule.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards in connection with the final rule amendments.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing the final rule
amendments and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the amendments in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 8, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.
0
For reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart N--[Amended]
0
2. Section 63.341(a) is amended as follows:
0
a. Removing the definition ``Chromium electroplating or chromium
anodizing tank''.
0
b. Revising the definitions ``Stalagmometer'' and ``Tensiometer''.
0
c. Adding in alphabetical order definitions ``Chromium anodizing
tank'', ``Chromium electroplating tank'', ``Enclosed hard chromium
electroplating tank''; and ``Open surface hard chromium electroplating
tank''.
Sec. 63.341 Definitions and nomenclature.
(a) * * *
Chromium anodizing tank means the receptacle or container along
with the following accompanying internal and external components needed
for chromium anodizing: rectifiers fitted with controls to allow for
voltage adjustments, heat exchanger equipment, circulation pumps, and
air agitation systems.
Chromium electroplating tank means the receptacle or container
along with the following internal and external components needed for
chromium electroplating: Rectifiers, anodes, heat exchanger equipment,
circulation pumps, and air agitation systems.
* * * * *
Enclosed hard chromium electroplating tank means a chromium
electroplating tank that is equipped with an enclosing hood and
ventilated at half the rate or less that of an open surface tank of the
same surface area.
* * * * *
Open surface hard chromium electroplating tank means a chromium
electroplating tank that is ventilated at a rate consistent with good
ventilation practices for open tanks.
* * * * *
Stalagmometer means an instrument used to measure the surface
tension of a solution by determining the mass of a drop of liquid by
weighing a known number of drops or by counting the number of drops
obtained from a given volume of liquid.
* * * * *
Tensiometer means an instrument used to measure the surface tension
of a solution by determining the amount of force needed to pull a ring
from the liquid surface. The amount of force is proportional to the
surface tension.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.342 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1),
0
b. Revising paragraph (c),
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(2), and
0
d. Revising paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B).
[[Page 42895]]
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.342 Standards.
* * * * *
(b) Applicability of emission limitations. (1) The emission
limitations in this section apply during tank operation as defined in
Sec. 63.341, and during periods of startup and shutdown as these are
routine occurrences for affected sources subject to this subpart. The
emission limitations do not apply during periods of malfunction, but
the work practice standards that address operation and maintenance and
that are required by paragraph (f) of this section must be followed
during malfunctions.
* * * * *
(c)(1) Standards for open surface hard chromium electroplating
tanks. During tank operation, each owner or operator of an existing,
new, or reconstructed affected source shall control chromium emissions
discharged to the atmosphere from that affected source by either:
(i) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the exhaust
gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.015 milligrams of
total chromium per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) of ventilation
air (6.6 x 10-6 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/
dscf)) for all open surface hard chromium electroplating tanks that are
affected sources other than those that are existing affected sources
located at small hard chromium electroplating facilities; or
(ii) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the
exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.03 mg/dscm
(1.3 x 10-5 gr/dscf) if the open surface hard chromium
electroplating tank is an existing affected source and is located at a
small, hard chromium electroplating facility; or
(iii) If a chemical fume suppressant containing a wetting agent is
used, by not allowing the surface tension of the electroplating or
anodizing bath contained within the affected tank to exceed 45 dynes
per centimeter (dynes/cm) (3.1 x 10-3 pound-force per foot
(lbf/ft)) as measured by a stalagmometer or 35 dynes/cm (2.4
x 10-3 lbf/ft) as measured by a tensiometer at
any time during tank operation.
(2) Standards for enclosed hard chromium electroplating tanks.
During tank operation, each owner or operator of an existing, new, or
reconstructed affected source shall control chromium emissions
discharged to the atmosphere from that affected source by either:
(i) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the exhaust
gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.015 mg/dscm (6.6 x
10-6 gr/dscf) for all enclosed hard chromium electroplating
tanks that are affected sources other than those that are existing
affected sources located at small, hard chromium electroplating
facilities; or
(ii) Not allowing the concentration of total chromium in the
exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed 0.03 mg/dscm
(1.3 x 10-5 gr/dscf) if the enclosed hard chromium
electroplating tank is an existing affected source and is located at a
small, hard chromium electroplating facility; or
(iii) If a chemical fume suppressant containing a wetting agent is
used, by not allowing the surface tension of the electroplating or
anodizing bath contained within the affected tank to exceed 45 dynes/cm
(3.1 x 10-3 lbf/ft) as measured by a
stalagmometer or 35 dynes/cm (2.4 x 10-3 lbf/ft)
as measured by a tensiometer at any time during tank operation; or
(iv) Not allowing the mass rate of total chromium in the exhaust
gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed the maximum allowable
mass emission rate determined by using the calculation procedure in
Sec. 63.344(f)(1)(i) for all enclosed hard chromium electroplating
tanks that are affected sources other than those that are existing
affected sources located at small, hard chromium electroplating
facilities; or
(v) Not allowing the mass rate of total chromium in the exhaust gas
stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed the maximum allowable
mass emission rate determined by using the calculation procedure in
Sec. 63.344(f)(1)(ii) if the enclosed hard chromium electroplating
tank is an existing affected source and is located at a small, hard
chromium electroplating facility.
(3)(i) An owner or operator may demonstrate the size of a hard
chromium electroplating facility through the definitions in Sec.
63.341(a). Alternatively, an owner or operator of a facility with a
maximum cumulative potential rectifier capacity of 60 million amp-hr/yr
or more may be considered small if the actual cumulative rectifier
capacity is less than 60 million amp-hr/yr as demonstrated using the
following procedures:
(A) If records show that the facility's previous annual actual
rectifier capacity was less than 60 million amp-hr/yr, by using
nonresettable ampere-hr meters and keeping monthly records of actual
ampere-hr usage for each 12-month rolling period following the
compliance date in accordance with Sec. 63.346(b)(12). The actual
cumulative rectifier capacity for the previous 12-month rolling period
shall be tabulated monthly by adding the capacity for the current month
to the capacities for the previous 11 months; or
(B) By accepting a federally-enforceable limit on the maximum
cumulative potential rectifier capacity of a hard chromium
electroplating facility and by maintaining monthly records in
accordance with Sec. 63.346(b)(12) to demonstrate that the limit has
not been exceeded. The actual cumulative rectifier capacity for the
previous 12-month rolling period shall be tabulated monthly by adding
the capacity for the current month to the capacities for the previous
11 months.
(ii) Once the monthly records required to be kept by Sec.
63.346(b)(12) and by this paragraph (c)(3)(ii) show that the actual
cumulative rectifier capacity over the previous 12-month rolling period
corresponds to the large designation, the owner or operator is subject
to the emission limitation identified in paragraph (c)(1)(i), (iii),
(c)(2)(i), (iii), or (iv) of this section, in accordance with the
compliance schedule of Sec. 63.343(a)(5).
(d) * * *
(2) If a chemical fume suppressant containing a wetting agent is
used, by not allowing the surface tension of the electroplating or
anodizing bath contained within the affected source to exceed 45 dynes/
cm (3.1 x 10-3 lbf/ft) as measured by a
stalagmometer or 35 dynes/cm (2.4 x 10-3 lbf/ft)
as measured by a tensiometer at any time during operation of the tank.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Fails to provide for the proper operation of the affected
source, the air pollution control techniques, or the control system and
process monitoring equipment during a malfunction in a manner
consistent with good air pollution control practices; or
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.343 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (iii),
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(1), and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (ii).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.343 Compliance provisions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The affected source is a hard chromium electroplating tank, a
decorative chromium electroplating tank or a chromium anodizing tank;
and
* * * * *
[[Page 42896]]
(iii) The owner or operator complies with the applicable surface
tension limit of Sec. 63.342(c)(1)(iii), (c)(2)(iii), or (d)(2) as
demonstrated through the continuous compliance monitoring required by
paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Composite mesh-pad systems. (i) During the initial performance
test, the owner or operator of an affected source, or a group of
affected sources under common control, complying with the emission
limitations in Sec. 63.342 through the use of a composite mesh-pad
system shall determine the outlet chromium concentration using the test
methods and procedures in Sec. 63.344(c), and shall establish as a
site-specific operating parameter the pressure drop across the system,
setting the value that corresponds to compliance with the applicable
emission limitation, using the procedures in Sec. 63.344(d)(5). An
owner or operator may conduct multiple performance tests to establish a
range of compliant pressure drop values, or may set as the compliant
value the average pressure drop measured over the three test runs of
one performance test and accept 2 inches of water column
from this value as the compliant range.
(ii) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
required to be completed under Sec. 63.7, except for hard chromium
electroplaters and chromium anodizing operations in California, which
have until January 25, 1998, the owner or operator of an affected
source, or group of affected sources under common control, shall
monitor and record the pressure drop across the composite mesh-pad
system once each day that any affected source is operating. To be in
compliance with the standards, the composite mesh-pad system shall be
operated within 2 inches of water column of the pressure
drop value established during the initial performance test, or shall be
operated within the range of compliant values for pressure drop
established during multiple performance tests.
(iii) The owner or operator of an affected source complying with
the emission limitations in Sec. 63.343 through the use of a composite
mesh-pad system may repeat the performance test and establish as a new
site-specific operating parameter the pressure drop across the
composite mesh-pad system according to the requirements in paragraphs
(c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section. To establish a new site-specific
operating parameter for pressure drop, the owner or operator shall
satisfy the requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)(A) through
(D) of this section.
(A) Determine the outlet chromium concentration using the test
methods and procedures in Sec. 63.344(c);
(B) Establish the site-specific operating parameter value using the
procedures Sec. 63.344(d)(5);
(C) Satisfy the recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 63.346(b)(6)
through (8); and
(D) Satisfy the reporting requirements in Sec. 63.347(d) and (f).
(iv) The requirement to operate a composite mesh-pad system within
the range of pressure drop values established under paragraphs
(c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section does not apply during automatic
washdown cycles of the composite mesh-pad system.
* * * * *
(5) Wetting agent-type or combination wetting agent-type/foam
blanket fume suppressants. (i) During the initial performance test, the
owner or operator of an affected source complying with the emission
limitations in Sec. 63.342 through the use of a wetting agent in the
electroplating or anodizing bath shall determine the outlet chromium
concentration using the procedures in Sec. 63.344(c). The owner or
operator shall establish as the site-specific operating parameter the
surface tension of the bath using Method 306B, appendix A of this part,
setting the maximum value that corresponds to compliance with the
applicable emission limitation. In lieu of establishing the maximum
surface tension during the performance test, the owner or operator may
accept 45 dynes/cm as measured by a stalagmometer or 35 dynes/cm as
measured by a tensiometer as the maximum surface tension value that
corresponds to compliance with the applicable emission limitation.
However, the owner or operator is exempt from conducting a performance
test only if the criteria of paragraph (b)(2) of this section are met.
(ii) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
required to be completed under Sec. 63.7, except for hard chromium
electroplaters and chromium anodizing operations in California, which
have until January 25, 1998, the owner or operator of an affected
source shall monitor the surface tension of the electroplating or
anodizing bath. Operation of the affected source at a surface tension
greater than the value established during the performance test, or
greater than 45 dynes/cm as measured by a stalagmometer or 35 dynes/cm
as measured by a tensiometer if the owner or operator is using this
value in accordance with paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section, shall
constitute noncompliance with the standards. The surface tension shall
be monitored according to the following schedule:
(A) The surface tension shall be measured once every 4 hours during
operation of the tank with a stalagmometer or a tensiometer as
specified in Method 306B, appendix A of this part.
(B) The time between monitoring can be increased if there have been
no exceedances. The surface tension shall be measured once every 4
hours of tank operation for the first 40 hours of tank operation after
the compliance date. Once there are no exceedances during 40 hours of
tank operation, surface tension measurement may be conducted once every
8 hours of tank operation. Once there are no exceedances during 40
hours of tank operation, surface tension measurement may be conducted
once every 40 hours of tank operation on an ongoing basis, until an
exceedance occurs. The minimum frequency of monitoring allowed by this
subpart is once every 40 hours of tank operation.
(C) Once an exceedance occurs as indicated through surface tension
monitoring, the original monitoring schedule of once every 4 hours must
be resumed. A subsequent decrease in frequency shall follow the
schedule laid out in paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B) of this section. For
example, if an owner or operator had been monitoring an affected source
once every 40 hours and an exceedance occurs, subsequent monitoring
would take place once every 4 hours of tank operation. Once an
exceedance does not occur for 40 hours of tank operation, monitoring
can occur once every 8 hours of tank operation. Once an exceedance does
not occur for 40 hours of tank operation on this schedule, monitoring
can occur once every 40 hours of tank operation.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.344 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.344 Performance test requirements and test methods.
* * * * *
(f) Compliance provisions for the mass rate emission standard for
enclosed hard chromium electroplating tanks. (1) This section
identifies procedures for calculating the maximum allowable mass
emission rate for owners or operators of affected sources who choose to
meet the mass emission rate standard in Sec. 63.342(c)(2)(iv) or (v).
(i)(A) The owner or operator of an enclosed hard chromium
electroplating tank that is an affected source other than an existing
affected source located at a small hard chromium electroplating
[[Page 42897]]
facility who chooses to meet the mass emission rate standard in Sec.
63.342(c)(2)(iv) shall determine compliance by not allowing the mass
rate of total chromium in the exhaust gas stream discharged to the
atmosphere to exceed the maximum allowable mass emission rate
calculated using equation 9:
MAMER = ETSA x K x 0.015 mg/dscm (9)
Where:
MAMER = the alternative emission rate for enclosed hard chromium
electroplating tanks in mg/hr.
ETSA = the hard chromium electroplating tank surface area in square
feet(ft \2\ ).
K = a conversion factor, 425 dscm/(ft \2\ x hr).
(B) Compliance with the alternative mass emission limit is
demonstrated if the three-run average mass emission rate determined
from Method 306 testing is less than or equal to the maximum allowable
mass emission rate calculated from equation 9.
(ii)(A) The owner or operator of an enclosed hard chromium
electroplating tank that is an existing affected source located at a
small hard chromium electroplating facility who chooses to meet the
mass emission rate standard in Sec. 63.342(c)(2)(v) shall determine
compliance by not allowing the mass rate of total chromium in the
exhaust gas stream discharged to the atmosphere to exceed the maximum
allowable mass emission rate calculated using equation 10:
MAMER = ETSA x K x 0.03 mg/dscm. (10)
(B) Compliance with the alternative mass emission limit is
demonstrated if the three-run average mass emission rate determined
from testing using Method 306 of appendix A to part 63 is less than or
equal to the maximum allowable mass emission rate calculated from
equation 10.
0
6. Section 63.347 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1)(viii) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.347 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(viii) For sources performing hard chromium electroplating, a
statement of whether the owner or operator of an affected source(s)
will limit the maximum potential cumulative rectifier capacity in
accordance with Sec. 63.342(c)(2) such that the hard chromium
electroplating facility is considered small; and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-16206 Filed 7-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P