[Federal Register: March 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 51)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14125-14151]
[DOCID:fr14mr08-26]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area Source
Standards for Plating and Polishing Operations; Proposed Rule

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0084; FRL-8541-9]
RIN 2060-AM37

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area
Source Standards for Plating and Polishing Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national emission standards for control of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for the plating and polishing area
source category. This rule proposes emission standards in the form of
management practices for new and existing tanks, thermal spraying
equipment, and mechanical polishing equipment in certain plating and
polishing processes. These proposed standards reflect EPA's
determination regarding the generally achievable control technology
(GACT) and/or management practices for the area source category.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 14, 2008, unless a
public hearing is requested by March 24, 2008. If a hearing is
requested on this proposed rule, written comments must be received by
April 28, 2008. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the
information collection provisions must be received by OMB on or before
April 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0084, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: NESHAP: Area Source Standards for Plating and
Polishing Operations Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of
two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk
Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0084. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ``NESHAP for Plating and
Polishing Area Sources'' Docket, at the EPA Docket and Information
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Donna Lee Jones, Sector Policies
and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(D243-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(919) 541-3207; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards
    A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for
the proposed standards?
    B. What source category is affected by the proposed standards?
    C. How did we gather information for this proposed rule?
    D. What is the industry profile?
    E. What are the production processes, emissions sources, and
available controls?
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
    A. Do the proposed standards apply to my source?
    B. When do I comply with the proposed standards?
    C. What emissions control requirements is EPA proposing?
    D. What are the initial compliance provisions?
    E. What are the continuous compliance provisions?
    F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
IV. Rationale for Selecting this Proposed Standards
    A. How did we select the source category?
    B. How did we select the affected sources?
    C. How did we subcategorize plating and polishing processes?
    D. How was GACT determined?
    E. How did we select the compliance requirements?
    F. How did we decide to exempt this area source category from
title V permit requirements?
V. Impacts of the Proposed Standards
    A. What are the air impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy
impacts?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated category and entities potentially affected by this
proposed action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                   NAICS code\1\              Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................          332813  Area source facilities engaged in any one or more
                                                            types of nonchromium electroplating;
                                                            electropolishing; electroforming; electroless
                                                            plating, including thermal metal spraying, chromate
                                                            conversion coating, and coloring; or mechanical
                                                            polishing of metals and formed products for the
                                                            trade. Regulated sources do not include chromium
                                                            electroplating and chromium anodizing sources, as
                                                            those sources are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
                                                            N, ``Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative
                                                            Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing
                                                            Tanks.''
Manufacturing............................          32, 33  Area source establishments engaged in one or more
                                                            types of nonchromium electroplating;
                                                            electropolishing; electroforming; electroless
                                                            plating, including thermal metal spraying, chromate
                                                            conversion coating, and coloring; or mechanical
                                                            polishing of metals and formed products for the
                                                            trade. Examples include: 33251, Hardware
                                                            Manufacturing; 323111, Commercial Gravure Printing;
                                                            332116, Metal Stamping; 332722, Bolt, Nut, Screw,
                                                            Rivet, and Washer Manufacturing; 332811, Metal Heat
                                                            Treating; 332812, Metal Coating, Engraving (except
                                                            Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to
                                                            Manufacturers; 332913, Plumbing Fixture Fitting and
                                                            Trim Manufacturing; Other Metal Valve and Pipe
                                                            Fitting Manufacturing; 332999, All Other
                                                            Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product
                                                            Manufacturing; 334412, Bare Printed Circuit Board
                                                            Manufacturing; 336412, Aircraft Engine and Engine
                                                            Parts Manufacturing; and 339911, Jewelry (except
                                                            Costume) Manufacturing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR
63.11475, `` Am I subject to this subpart?'' of subpart WWWWWW
(National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP):
Area Source Standards for Plating and Polishing Operations). If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the
entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in Sec.  63.13 of
the General Provisions to part 63 (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

    Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0084. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). A copy of this
proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page
for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

D. When would a public hearing occur?

    If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing
concerning this proposed rule by March 24, 2008, we will hold a public
hearing on March 31, 2008. If you are interested in attending the
public hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at<PHONE_NUMBER> to verify
that a hearing will be held. If a public hearing is held, it will be
held at 10 a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium,
Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.

II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards

A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for the
proposed standards?

    Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires us to establish
NESHAP for both major and area sources of HAP that are listed for
regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major source emits or has the
potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or
25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. An area source is a
stationary source that is not a major source.
    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least
30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas.
EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air
Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in the
Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health
threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 urban
HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or
subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing
90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to
regulation. We implemented these requirements through the Integrated
Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). A primary goal
of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent reduction in cancer
incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources.

    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of
generally available control technologies or management practices by
such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.''
Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate report on the
legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which
describes GACT as:

    * * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.

Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important
when developing regulations for source categories that have many small
businesses.
    Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control
technologies and management practices that are generally available to
the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards
applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine
if the control technologies and management practices are transferable
and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances,
we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major
sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies
and practices could be considered generally available for the area
source category at issue. Finally, as we have already noted, in
determining GACT for a particular area source category, we consider the
costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and
management practices on that category.
    We are proposing these national emission standards in response to a
court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for 11
source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by June
15, 2008 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, D.D.C., March 2006). We
have already issued regulations addressing one of the 11 source
categories. See regulations for Wood Preserving (Federal Register, 72
(135), July 16, 2007.) Other rulemakings will include standards for the
remaining source categories that are due in June 2008.

B. What area source category is affected by the proposed standards?

    The Plating and Polishing Area Source Category includes any
facility engaged in one or more of the following operations or
processes: electroplating without chromium; electroforming;
electropolishing; electroless plating; other non-electrolytic metal
coating, such as chromate conversion coating and thermal spraying; and
the mechanical polishing of finished metals and formed products after
plating. Note that facilities that are engaged in chromium
electroplating that also perform any of the above plating and polishing
processes are included in the Plating and Polishing Area Source
Category for these processes.
    Plating and polishing facilities are primarily classified under
NAICS code 332813. However, plating and polishing processes are also
co-located at many facilities that are classified under other NAICS
codes. Examples include NAICS 33251, Hardware Manufacturing; 323111,
Commercial Gravure Printing; 332116, Metal Stamping; 332722, Bolt, Nut,
Screw, Rivet, and Washer Manufacturing; 332811, Metal Heat Treating;
332812, Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and
Allied Services to Manufacturers; 332913, Plumbing Fixture Fitting and
Trim Manufacturing; Other Metal Valve and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing;
332999, All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing;
334412, Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing; 336412, Aircraft
Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing; and 339911, Jewelry (except
Costume) Manufacturing.
    We added plating and polishing operations to the Integrated Urban
Air Toxics Strategy Area Source Category List on June 26, 2002 (67 FR
43113). The inclusion of this source category to the section 112(c)(3)
area source category list is based on 1990 emissions data, as EPA used
1990 as the baseline year for that listing. EPA listed this source
category for regulation pursuant to section 112(c)(3), based on
emissions of compounds of five HAP metals: cadmium, chromium, lead,
manganese, and nickel. These five metal HAP represent part of the 90
percent of those urban HAP emissions in the 1990 inventory to be
regulated, and are hereafter referred to as ``plating and polishing
metal HAP.'' This source category was also listed for emissions of the
organic HAP trichloroethylene (TCE). Chlorinated solvents such as TCE
are used as degreasers in the plating industry. We subsequently
discovered that the 1990 emissions data for TCE was for plating
facilities that used TCE in degreasing operations, which are not part
of this source category. Rather, these emission units at both major and
area sources are subject to standards for halogenated solvent cleaning
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart T. Consequently, we are not proposing
standards for TCE from plating and polishing facilities. The plating
and polishing source category listed for TCE emissions remains a listed
source category pursuant to section 112(c)(3) of this part, and this
proposed rule establishes standards for emissions of plating and
polishing metal HAP. Therefore, we are clarifying that we do not need
plating and polishing to meet the section 112(c)(3) 90 percent
requirement regarding area source emissions of TCE.

C. How did we gather information for this proposed rule?

    We gathered information for this proposed rule from industry
representatives, trade associations, technical experts, published
literature, the 2002 EPA National Emission Inventory, and a 2006 EPA
survey of the industry that we performed specifically for the plating
and polishing area source rule.
    The EPA survey, also called information collection requests (ICR),
was developed by EPA under the authority of section 114 of the CAA. A
copy of the ICR questionnaire and the responses can be found in the
docket for the Plating and Polishing Area Source Rule (Docket Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0084).
    The first version of the questionnaire was sent out in November
2004 to nine recipients; responses were received from eight facilities.
A Federal Register Notice (FRN) was published in July 2005 (70 FR
43865, July 29, 2005) requesting comment on a second, improved
questionnaire that was revised based on comments received from the
first version. A second FRN was published on October 26, 2005 (70 FR
61810) to announce that the questionnaire had been submitted to the OMB
for approval. Approval was received from OMB on February 23, 2006 (OMB
2060-0577, ICR 2186.01, Form No. 7610-32). A total of 1,151
questionnaires were mailed on May 10, 2006; most responses were
received by July 31, 2006.
    Potential recipients for the ICR were identified from names and
addresses of facilities listed in several on-line databases, company
websites, and information obtained from EPA Regional offices and State
and local regulatory agencies. Through this process a list of
approximately 2,500 facilities was compiled that was later reduced to
1,151 by eliminating plants with incomplete mailing addresses or plants
that appeared to not belong to the source category. From the 1,151
total

ICR mailed, EPA received back 598 questionnaires. Adding these ICR to
the previous 8 surveys, the total number of industry responses received
by EPA was 606. Of this total, 120 were excluded from the area source
analysis because either the information was not complete (80 ICR) or
because the facilities were major sources that were not within the
plating and polishing area source category (40 ICR).\a\ The result was
486 surveys from area sources in the plating and polishing source
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \a\ We did, however, analyze separately the information on major
sources in similar source categories to determine if the control
technologies and management practices were transferable and
generally available to the plating and polishing area source
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2006 EPA survey responses, no facility was found to be a
major source for their plating and polishing processes. There were 15
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63) that were reported to be applicable to
processes at the surveyed facilities co-located with plating and
polishing processes. The most frequently identified NESHAP included
``Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating
and Chromium Anodizing Tanks'' (subpart N) and ``Halogenated Solvent
Cleaning'' (subpart T). These NESHAP (subparts N and T) apply to both
major and area sources. Of the 486 area source plating and polishing
facilities that responded to the 2006 EPA survey, approximately 250
have co-located area source processes subject to one or both of these
two NESHAP.
    The results of the survey analyses can be found in a memorandum for
the Plating and Polishing Area Source Rule. (See Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0084.)

D. What is the industry profile?

    Based on 2002 U.S. Census data and the 2006 EPA survey of the
industry, we estimate that 2,900 plating and polishing area source
facilities are currently operating in the U.S. Independent estimates by
the industry trade association confirm our estimate. The estimate
includes several plating and polishing area sources that are captive
facilities (i.e., co-located at manufacturing and other facilities
engaged primarily in other operations). See section I(A) above, ``Does
this action apply to me?'' for examples of some of these operations.
    The 2006 EPA survey results indicated about 80 percent of the
industry is located in 14 States, with about 40 percent of the area
source facilities located in three States (Illinois, California, and
Ohio). Nearly all (97 percent) of the plating and polishing facilities
are in urban areas \b\ based on the 2006 EPA survey. Our analyses also
indicate that between 92 and 98 percent of the plating and polishing
area source category is comprised of small businesses, which the Small
Business Administration defines to be facilities with less than 500
employees. The 2002 Census data also showed that 50 percent of the
facilities in this source category had less than 10 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \b\ These urban areas are defined to be the urban 1 and urban 2
areas that formed the basis of the listing decisions under 112(c)(3)
and (k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 2,900 estimated area source facilities in the plating and
polishing industry, we estimate that there are approximately 22,000
tanks and 1,400 thermal spray lines that use the plating and polishing
metal HAP. Based on the 2006 EPA survey, the number of tanks per
facility with plating and polishing metal HAP is estimated to range
from 1 to 20 with an average of 10 tanks per facility. For the
estimated 300 area source facilities that do thermal spraying with
plating and polishing metal HAP, we estimate that these facilities have
from 1 to 20 lines, with an average of 5 thermal spraying lines per
facility.

E. What are the production processes, emission sources, and available
controls?

1. Plating and Polishing Processes
    Plating and polishing facilities perform several operations that
use and can emit the plating and polishing metal HAP. These include
electrolytic processes, non-electrolytic processes, thermal spraying
processes, and dry mechanical polishing operations. Electrolytic
processes include non-chromium electroplating, electroforming, and
electropolishing. Non-electrolytic processes include electroless nickel
plating, chromate conversion coating, and other tank-based processes,
such as nickel acetate sealing. Electroplating, electroforming,
electropolishing, and non-electrolytic (or ``electroless'') plating all
take place in a tank or ``bath.''
    From the analyses performed with data acquired in the 2006 EPA
survey, it is estimated that more than half of the plating and
polishing area source facilities (estimated at over 1,500 facilities)
perform electroplating with the plating and polishing metal HAP, with
nickel the predominant metal plated; 4 percent or 80 facilities are
estimated to perform electropolishing with the plating and polishing
metal HAP; and less than 1 percent or 25 facilities are estimated to
perform electroforming with the plating and polishing metal HAP. For
the non-electrolytic processes, approximately 25 percent of the
facilities are estimated to perform electroless nickel and/or other
electroless coating with the plating and polishing metal HAP. For the
mechanical polishing process, we estimate that approximately 25
percent, or 700 facilities, perform mechanical polishing of the plating
and polishing metal HAP. For thermal spraying process, we estimate that
approximately 11 percent, or 300 facilities, have thermal spraying
processes that use the plating and polishing metal HAP.
    Many facilities perform more than one type of metal plating or
polishing. From the analyses performed with data acquired in the 2006
EPA survey, we estimate that 80 percent of the facilities use nickel
(with two-thirds of the nickel used in electroplating and one-third in
electroless nickel plating); 29 percent use lead, 16 percent use
chromium (in non-electroplating tanks), 5 percent use manganese, and 4
percent use cadmium. This includes both tank-based plating as well as
thermal spraying processes, and where more than one plating or
polishing process occurs at many facilities.
    Electrolytic Plating and Polishing Processes. Electrolytic
processes include electroplating, electroforming, and electropolishing.
In the electroplating process, metal ions in either acid (pH less than
7), alkaline (pH greater than 7), or neutral (pH approximately equal to
7) solutions are reduced onto the surface of the work piece (the
cathode or substrate) via an electrical current. The metal ions in the
solution are usually replenished by the dissolution of metal from solid
metal anodes (made of the same metal as that being plated), or by
direct replenishment of the solution with metal salts or oxides.
Electroplating can be performed with or without cyanide in the bath.
Cyanide is a constituent of some baths and works to keep the metals in
solution. More discussion of plating with cyanide follows below.
    Electroforming is similar to electroplating, except that the plated
surface is the product and the item that shapes the metal (the mandrel)
is removed and discarded afterwards. Otherwise, electroforming is
similar in chemistry to electroplating processes. Electroforming can be
performed with or without cyanide in the bath.
    Electropolishing is essentially the opposite of electroplating; the
metal to be polished acts as the anode in an electric circuit. In this
process, the work piece is attached to the anode and metal substrate is
dissolved electrolytically, thereby removing the surface contaminant.
Electropolishing can be

performed in acid or alkaline baths, although most electropolishing is
performed in acid baths containing phosphoric acid and one or more
additional acids. Other acids that are used in electropolishing baths
include sulfuric, chromic, fluoboric, hydrochloric, citric, and
glycolic acid. According to industry experts, less than 1 percent of
plating and polishing facilities currently use chromic acid in
electropolishing processes. Electropolishing is not performed with
cyanide in the bath.
    Most electroplating tank chemical formulations (or ``chemistries'')
that do not use cyanide incorporate a wetting agent to minimize pitting
from the hydrogen gas bubbles that form on the surface of the parts
being plated. Wetting agents prevent the bubbles from adhering to the
surface of the parts. Wetting agents also lower the surface tension of
the plating bath and act to reduce the amount of energy released when
the gas bubbles rise to the surface of the bath and burst.
Consequently, the wetting agents also reduce the level of misting and
metal HAP emissions from the tank. As a result of this dual function,
these chemical compounds are referred to collectively as wetting agent/
fume suppressants (WAFS). Because WAFS prevent metal HAP emissions, as
opposed to collecting metal HAP emissions after they occur with add-on
control devices, they are considered a pollution prevention technique.
    Some chemicals that are not part of the initial plating bath
chemistries are added ``over the side'' of the plating tanks, and
include chemicals such as WAFS. This is especially true for the plating
tanks that lose a significant amount of their ingredients through what
is called ``drag-out,'' or the loss of tank solution that occurs when
parts are removed. The occurrence of drag-out necessitates the
replenishing of the bath ingredients ``over the side'' during the
plating process.
    As noted above, some plating baths use cyanide as a major bath
ingredient. Cyanide is added to dissolve the metal cyanide compound
(e.g., cadmium cyanide) and to create free cyanide in solution, which
helps to corrode the anode. Caustic soda and carbonate also are added
to the bath. These three constituents (cyanide, caustic soda, and
carbonate) all work to increase the pH of the solution to at least 12.
These tanks are self-regulating to a pH equal to or greater than 12 due
to the nature of the cyanide bath chemistry.
    The cyanide in the bath is a major bath constituent and not an
additive. However, because of the self-regulating chemistry of the
bath, the cyanide causes the bath to act as if WAFS are being used to
prevent the metal HAP from being emitted rather than plated. All
cyanide plating baths at pH greater than or equal to 12 have cyanide-
metal complexes in solution. The metal to be plated is either bound in
the metal-cyanide complex, or reduced at the cathode to elemental metal
and plated onto the immersed parts. According to the technical
literature and industry experts, considering the self-regulating
chemistry of the bath, emissions of cyanide in the form of hydrogen
cyanide would occur only at a pH of less than 12. Cyanide baths are not
intentionally operated at pH less than 12 since unfavorable plating
conditions would occur in the tank, among other negative effects. See
the docket for this rule for minutes of meetings with industry
representative and literature documents related to cyanide bath
chemistry. (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0084).
    Non-electrolytic Processes. Non-electrolytic or ``electroless''
plating involves the deposition of a metallic coating on a metallic or
nonmetallic surface without the use of external electrical energy. The
basic ingredients in an electroless plating solution are a metal
(usually in the form of a salt), a reducer, a complexing agent to hold
the metal in solution, a WAFS, and various buffers and other chemicals
to maintain bath stability and increase bath life. Non-electrolytic
processes include electroless nickel plating, chromate conversion
coating, nickel acetate sealing, sodium dichromate sealing, and
manganese phosphate coating.
    Conversion coatings, such as chromate, are produced on various
metal substrates to create a protective film that is formed when a
portion of the base metal is converted to one of the components of the
film by reaction with aqueous solutions containing the metal (such as
hexavalent chromium) and other active organic or inorganic compounds.
Chromate conversion coatings are most frequently applied to zinc,
cadmium, aluminum, magnesium, copper, tin, chromium, brass, bronze, and
silver metal base products. Manganese phosphate coating is another type
of conversion coating used to increase wear resistance. In this
process, the work piece is immersed in a tank with a heated bath that
includes phosphoric acid and manganese dioxide for a period of minutes
up to several hours, depending on the application.
    Nickel acetate, dichromate, and lead acetate sealing are steps that
help to seal work pieces to increase corrosion resistance. These
processes involve immersing the part in a tank with a heated bath for a
relatively short period of time (e.g., 5 to 10 minutes).
    Thermal/flame Spraying Processes. Thermal spraying or flame
spraying is another type of metal coating operation that uses one or
more of the plating and polishing metal HAP. Thermal spraying usually
is performed at dedicated facilities that specialize in this process
and do not perform the other plating and polishing processes described
in this section. In thermal spraying, a metal, such as chromium or
nickel, is melted and then immediately sprayed onto a part or surface.
Commonly-used thermal spraying processes are flame spraying, electric
arc spraying, plasma arc spraying, and high velocity oxy-fuel. Unlike
the other plating and coating processes discussed previously that
involve immersing the work piece in a liquid-filled tank, thermal
spraying is performed in a spray booth. Thermal spraying is not a
complete substitute for tank plating because thermal spraying can only
apply metal coatings to line-of-sight surfaces and does not penetrate
into the depressions and holes of the work piece as in tank plating.
    Dry Mechanical Polishing Processes. Dry mechanical polishing is
performed using hard-faced wheels constructed of muslin, canvas, felt
or leather. Abrasives are applied to the wheels with synthetic
adhesives or cements, typically silicate-base cements. Abrasive belts
coated with adhesives and abrasives in the same way as the wheels are
also used for polishing. Lubricants including oil, grease, tallow, and
special bar lubricants are often used to prevent gouging and tearing
when a fine polished surface is required and also to minimize
frictional heat.
2. Plating and Polishing Metal HAP Emission Sources
    In the plating industry, the metal being plated is part of the
product sold, therefore, any metal HAP emissions are an economic loss,
i.e., cost, to the facility and are avoided as much as possible.
Generally, the primary plating and polishing metal HAP emission sources
are the tanks in which plating processes occur.
    Electrolytic Plating and Polishing Metal HAP Emissions. The primary
mechanism that can release any metal HAP, including the plating and
polishing metal HAP, from electrolytic plating and polishing tanks is
the evolution of hydrogen and oxygen gas in bubbles that form on the
surfaces of the submerged work piece, or on anodes or cathodes during
electroplating. These gas bubbles rise to the surface and then burst,
carrying liquid with them in the form of a fine mist. In
electroplating, the

rate of bubbling is a function of the chemical or electrochemical
activity in the tank and increases with the amount of work in the tank,
the strength and temperature of the solution, and the current densities
in the plating tanks.
    A term commonly used to describe the ease or difficulty of
electroplating a specific metal is its cathodic efficiency, which
refers to the ability of the cathode to reduce the metal to the
elemental form so that the metal can be plated onto the part surface.
The cathodic efficiencies of nickel and cadmium, the most common metals
plated in the plating and polishing industry of this proposed rule, are
high and on the order of 90 percent or more. Chromium, on the other
hand, has a relatively low cathodic efficiency of less than 20 percent.
Plating processes with high cathodic efficiencies, such as nickel and
cadmium, generate less gassing at the anode and consequently have lower
emissions than plating processes with low cathodic efficiencies, such
as chromium.
    As discussed above in section (1), ``Plating and Polishing
Processes,'' WAFS, a common ingredient in plating tanks for purposes of
generating a better plated product, also incidentally lower the surface
tension of the bath. The WAFS act to reduce the amount of energy
released when gas bubbles rise to the surface of the bath and burst,
thereby reducing the level of misting and metal HAP emissions from the
tank. Because WAFS prevent most metal HAP emissions from occurring,
they are considered a pollution prevention technique, as opposed to
techniques that control emissions after they occur, such as add-on
control devices. All non-chromium electroplating baths use WAFS, except
for cyanide electroplating. The reason for the exception to this
practice is discussed below.
    In plating tanks that use cyanide as a major bath ingredient, which
are operated at a pH of at least 12, the self-regulating chemistry of
the cyanide in the bath causes the bath to operate as if WAFS were
being used, which ensures an optimum plating process, as discussed
above in section (1), ``Plating and Polishing Processes.'' All cyanide
plating baths are composed of cyanide-metal complexes in solution.
There are little metal HAP emissions from these tanks because the metal
to be plated is either bound in the metal-cyanide complex or reduced at
the cathode to elemental metal and plated onto the immersed parts.
Emissions of cyanide in the form of hydrogen cyanide are also low or
nonexistent; these emissions would occur only at pH values less than
12.
    Non-Electrolytic Plating Metal HAP Emissions. Plating tanks that do
not use electrical current have much lower metal HAP emissions than
electroplating tanks because the bubbling that occurs from electrolysis
is not present. Chromium conversion coating was excluded from the
estimates of chromium emissions in the Occupational Safety and Health
(OSHA) work place rule for hexavalent chromium (Federal Register 71
(39), 10099-10385, February 28, 2006).
    In addition, the concentration of the metals in non-electrolytic
tanks is much lower than the concentration in their electrolytic bath
counterparts. For example, the concentration of nickel in an
electroless plating bath is less than one ounce of nickel metal per
gallon (oz/gal) of tank contents (less than 7 grams per liter (g/L)) as
compared to the concentration of nickel in a nickel electroplating bath
of 13 oz/gal (91 g/L). In manganese phosphating, the manganese
concentration is less than 1 percent by volume (v/v).
    Metal HAP Emissions from Procedures Used for All Tank-based
Processes. Procedures that can result in emissions from all plating and
polishing tanks are: Bath agitation; placement of the work pieces in
the tank; and removal of the work pieces from the tank. Bath agitation
typically is accomplished by air sparging (i.e., bubbling air through
the tank), or by mechanical agitation using eductors; emissions
generally are greater when air sparging is used.
    Plating emissions can also be affected by whether rack or barrel
plating is performed. In rack plating, the parts to be plated are
mounted on racks and immersed in the plating solution, where they
remain stationary. In barrel plating, the parts to be plated are placed
in a slotted or perforated barrel that is immersed in the plating
solution and rotated to ensure even coverage of the plate on the parts.
The movement of the barrel has the potential to cause more emissions to
be generated than rack plating.
    Metal HAP Emissions from Thermal Spraying and Dry Mechanical
Polishing Processes. Metal HAP emissions from thermal spraying and dry
mechanical polishing are in the form of particulate matter (PM). In
thermal spraying, the PM is emitted as excess metal spray that results
from over-spraying during application of the metal to the product. The
PM emitted from dry mechanical polishing results mostly from excess
plated metal that is removed from the product along with a small amount
of PM that originates from the abrasive material on the polishing wheel
or machine. For affected plating and polishing area sources, all the PM
described above, except the PM from abrasive material on the wheel,
includes metal HAP.
3. Plating and Polishing Metal HAP Emission Controls
    As discussed above in section (2), ``Plating and Polishing Metal
HAP Emission Sources,'' the metal being plated is part of the products
from the plating industry, therefore, any metal HAP emissions are an
economic loss (i.e., cost) to the facility and are avoided as much as
possible. Consequently, a variety of methods are used by the industry
to prevent emissions from plating and polishing processes. These
methods are designed to reduce the amount of metal HAP emitted from
plating tanks by using what is called ``in-tank controls,'' that are
discussed in more detail below.
    Some facilities use add-on control systems to control emissions
from plating and polishing tanks that involve capturing emissions and
exhausting them to add-on emission control devices. Control systems are
the combination of a capture system and an add-on control device. The
capture system is designed to collect and transport air emissions from
the affected source to the control device. The overall control
efficiency of any control system is a combination of the ability of the
system to capture the air emissions (i.e., the capture efficiency) and
the control device efficiency. Consequently, it is important to achieve
good capture to ensure good overall control efficiency. Capture devices
that are known to provide high capture efficiencies include hoods,
enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers,
manifolds, plenums, or fans.
    Add-on controls in the plating and polishing industry are used to
control water vapor (steam) and other non-HAP tank ingredients that
evaporate from the tank. These add-on control systems also incidentally
capture and control any metal HAP that may be emitted from the tank. In
addition, add-on controls are used to control PM, which is a surrogate
for metal HAP, from thermal spraying and dry mechanical polishing
processes. These add-on controls are discussed in more detail below.
    In-tank Pollution Prevention Controls. Wetting agent/fume
suppressants, as previously discussed, are ingredients included in
plating tanks for purposes of generating a better plated product. The
WAFS also incidentally lower the surface tension of the bath and in
turn

the metal HAP emissions, and therefore are a pollution prevention
control technique. The WAFS act to reduce the amount of energy released
when gas bubbles rise to the surface of the bath and burst, thereby
significantly reducing the level of misting and metal HAP emissions
from the tank. All non-cyanide electroplating baths use WAFS.
    Data compiled during the development of the NESHAP for ``Chromium
Emissions From Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium
Anodizing Tanks (subpart N), hereafter called the ``Chromium
Electroplating NESHAP,'' and during a recent study of nickel plating
sponsored by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD),
demonstrated that plating tanks that use WAFS have significantly lower
emissions than tanks that do not use wetting agents. The use of WAFS
was found to reduce plating emissions by up to 95 percent, depending on
the initial level of emissions without WAFS.
    Other types of in-the-tank controls for plating tanks include foam
blankets and polyballs, both of which reduce emissions by covering the
liquid surface of the tank thereby minimizing the misting that results
from the bursting of gas bubbles at the tank surface. These
technologies are estimated to reduce emissions by 70 to 80 percent
provided they cover the entire surface of the tank bath. The difficulty
in maintaining complete coverage of the tank surface prevents many
plants from using foam blankets and polyballs as their sole emission
control technique.
    Tank Add-on Controls. Add-on controls are used in plating and
polishing facilities to collect water vapor (steam) and other non-HAP
tank ingredients that evaporate from the tank. These add-on controls
also incidentally capture and control any metal HAP that may be emitted
from the tank. Add-on control devices used to reduce emissions from
plating and polishing tanks include composite mesh pads (CMP), packed
bed scrubbers (PBS), and mesh pad mist eliminators (MPME). CMP, which
are used on many chromium electroplating tanks, operate at 99 percent
control efficiency. The data compiled for the Chromium Electroplating
NESHAP demonstrate that PBS operate at 94 to 99 percent control
efficiency. MPME typically achieve 98 to 99 percent control. Simple
mist eliminators reduce emissions by 80 to 99 percent depending on
design; chevron blade mist eliminators achieve 80 to 95 percent
control.
    The overall control efficiency of any control system is a
combination of the ability of the system to capture the fumes (i.e.,
capture efficiency) and the control device efficiency. The capture
system transports the HAP emissions from the affected source to the
control device; consequently, it is important to achieve good capture
of the plating HAP emissions to ensure control of the majority of the
metal HAP emissions. Capture devices that are known to provide high
capture efficiencies include hoods, enclosures, or any other duct
intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans that
draw greater than 90 percent of the emissions from the process into the
control device.
    Thermal Spraying Add-on Controls. Thermal spraying processes in the
plating and polishing industry are performed in spray booths where
metal HAP emissions are most often controlled with add-on controls for
PM such as fabric filters or high efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
filters. Both of these filtration techniques reduce emissions by 95 to
99 percent, depending on the capture efficiency of the system, as
discussed above under ``Tank Add-on Controls.'' Water curtains, which
achieve 90 percent control, also are used in the plating and polishing
industry for controlling PM from thermal spraying.
    The large amount of PM generated during thermal spraying has made
it necessary for facilities to control the PM emitted at all times to
protect the worker and working environment. Consequently, by
controlling the PM facilities are also simultaneously controlling the
metal HAP, where the PM is a surrogate for the metal HAP.
    Dry Mechanical Polishing Controls. The metal HAP emissions from dry
mechanical polishing, which are in the form of PM in this process, are
controlled with a control system, as discussed above in section II
(E)(3), ``Plating and Polishing Metal HAP Emission Controls.''
Historically, the large amount of PM generated during the dry
mechanical polishing operations has made it necessary for facilities to
control the PM emitted at all times to protect the work environment.
Metal HAP are simultaneously controlled as an additional benefit of
this current control practice.
    The control system for dry mechanical polishing is the combination
of a capture system and an add-on control device. The capture system is
designed to collect and transport air emissions from the affected
source to the control device. The overall control efficiency of a
control system is a combination of the ability of the system to capture
the air emissions (i.e., the capture efficiency) and the control device
efficiency. Consequently, it is important to achieve good capture to
ensure good overall control efficiency.
    Capture devices that are known to provide high capture efficiencies
include hoods or any other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers,
manifolds, plenums, or fans. Control devices used for dry mechanical
polishing include filtration devices such as cartridge, fabric, or HEPA
filters, where PM is controlled as a surrogate for metal HAP. These
control techniques reduce PM and metal HAP emissions by more than 90
percent, depending on the capture efficiency of the system. Complete
capture of the PM (and also metal HAP) by the exhaust system is not
typical in this industry because of the need for the workers to be
close to the polishing wheels, which precludes the use of total
enclosures.

III. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Do the proposed standards apply to my source?

    The proposed subpart WWWWWW applies to new and existing area
sources of plating and polishing that use any of the plating and
polishing metal HAP (cadmium, chromium,\c\ lead, manganese, or nickel)
in tanks or thermal spraying processes; and dry mechanical polishing
operations used to remove or polish products with these metal HAP. A
new source is any affected source where you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source on or after the date that this
proposed rule is published in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \c\ Regulated sources do not include chromium electroplating and
chromium anodizing sources, as those sources are subject to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart N, ``Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative
Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. When do I comply with the proposed standards?

    All existing area source facilities with operations subject to this
proposed rule would be required to comply with the rule requirements
for their existing operations no later than 2 years after the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The owner or
operator of a new area source operation would be required to comply
with the rule requirements by the date of publication of the final rule
in the Federal Register or upon startup, whichever is later.

C. What emissions control requirements is EPA proposing?

1. Controls for All Affected Plating and Polishing Process Tanks
    Owners or operators of all new and existing affected plating and
polishing processes performed in tanks, regardless of bath pH, presence
of cyanide, or use of electricity, would be required to comply with the
following management and pollution prevention practices: (1) Minimize
bath agitation when removing tank objects; (2) maximize dripping of
bath solution back into tank by extending drip time when removing the
tank objects and using drain boards (also known as drip shields); (3)
optimize the design of barrels, racks, and parts to minimize dragout of
bath solution, such as by using slotted barrels and tilted racks, or by
using designs with flow-through holes to allow the tank solution to
drip back into the tank; (4) use tank covers, if available on-site at
the facility, whenever possible (i.e., not during lifting or lowering
parts); and (5) minimize or reduce heating during tank operation and
when tanks are not in use.
2. Controls for Non-cyanide Electrolytic Process Tanks Operated at pH
Less than 12.
    Non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks are operated at pH less than
12 (hereafter referred to as non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks)
and include tanks that are used for electroplating, electroforming, or
electropolishing, as defined in Sec.  63.11510, ``Definitions.'' This
proposed rule would require owners or operators of new and existing
affected non-cyanide electrolytic processes, which are operated at a pH
of less than 12, to use a WAFS in the tank bath as directed by the
manufacturer of plating chemicals, as an equipment standard. All
electroplating baths in the plating and polishing source category use
WAFS, except for tanks that perform electroplating with cyanide in the
bath. This proposed rule would also require owners or operators of
affected non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks to implement the
management and pollution prevention practices described previously in
section (1), ``Controls for All Affected Tanks.''
    The requirement for WAFS would not apply to cyanide electroplating
and electroforming tanks that operate at pH of 12 or greater, or
facilities that comply with the requirement for electroplating for
short time periods discussed below. The in-tank control requirements
proposed for these processes are discussed below in sections (4) and
(5).
    To meet the requirement for WAFS, the owner or operator would
operate either a tank with bath chemistry that includes a WAFS or add
WAFS separately to the bath. The owner or operator would also document
that WAFS are added when each tank is initially filled for plating and
polishing operations. For tanks where WAFS are separately purchased
tank ingredients, the use of WAFS would also be documented every time
other bath ingredients are replenished during the plating process,
where the WAFS are to be added in the same proportion as in the
original bath.
    As a compliance option we are proposing that in lieu of using WAFS,
facilities may use control systems that include capture devices
designed to capture the plating and polishing metal HAP emissions from
the tanks and to transport these metal HAP emissions to CMP, PBS, or
MPME control devices. These control systems include capture devices
such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with
ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. The use of such capture
devices, in combination with CMP, PBS, and MPME control devices, if
operated according to the manufacturers' specifications, has been
demonstrated to achieve equivalent emission reductions to WAFS, which
we determined to be GACT for non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks).
Add-on controls are used to control water vapor (steam) and other non-
HAP tank ingredients that evaporate from the tank; these add-on
controls also incidentally capture and control any metal HAP that may
be emitted from the tank at a level of at least 95 percent control when
operated according to the manufacturer's specifications.
    Facilities that would like to use equipment other than those listed
above can seek approval to do so pursuant to the procedures in Sec.
63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63, which require the owner
or operator to demonstrate that the alternative means of emission
limitation achieves at least equivalent HAP emission reductions as the
controls specified in this rule.
3. Non-electrolytic (Electroless) Process Tanks
    This proposed rule would require owners or operators of new and
existing affected non-electrolytic process tanks to implement the
management and pollution prevention practices described previously in
section (1), ``Controls for All Affected Tanks.'' Affected non-
electrolytic processes under this proposed rule would include but are
not limited to processes such as electroless nickel plating; chromate
conversion coating; manganese phosphating; and nickel acetate,
dichromate, and lead sealing processes.
4. Controls for Electroplating and Electroforming Process Tanks with
Cyanide Operated at a pH Equal to or Greater than 12
    This proposed rule would require owners or operators of new and
existing affected electroplating and electroforming process tanks with
cyanide operated at pH equal to or greater than 12, to implement the
management and pollution prevention practices described in section (1)
above, ``Controls for All Affected Tanks.''
5. Controls for Flash or Short-term Electroplating Process Tanks
    Under this proposed rule, new and existing affected ``flash'' or
short-term electroplating processes are defined to be tanks that
perform plating no more than 1 hour per day or 3 minutes per hour of
plating time; or use covers for 95 percent of the total plating time.
These electroplating processes are performed infrequently or for short
periods of time, some of which are on the order of 30 seconds or less,
as a quick dip. These tanks would be required to meet the management
and pollution prevention practices, described previously in section (1)
above, ``Controls for All Affected Tanks,'' which include the
requirement to reduce the heat when the tanks are not in use.
6. Controls for Thermal Spraying Processes
    For existing affected thermal spraying processes, this proposed
rule would require control systems that are designed to provide capture
of the plating and polishing metal HAP emissions from thermal spraying
processes and transport these metal HAP emissions to water curtains,
fabric filters, or HEPA filters. The control systems include capture
devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices
with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. The use of such
capture devices in combination with water curtains, fabric filters, or
HEPA filters, if operated according to the manufacturers
specifications, have been demonstrated to achieve at least 90 percent
overall control. Based on our surveys and a thorough review of the
industry, we determined that the above capture and control devices are
currently used by the industry.
    This proposed rule would require new thermal spraying processes to
install control systems that are designed

to provide capture and control of the metal HAP emissions from these
sources and that transport these emissions from the affected source to
fabric or HEPA filters. These control systems include capture devices
such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with
ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. The use of such capture
devices in combination with fabric or HEPA filters, if operated
according to the manufacturers specifications, have been demonstrated
to achieve 95 percent overall control. Based on our surveys and a
thorough review of the industry, we determined that the above capture
and control devices are currently used by the industry.
    Facilities that would like to use equipment other than those listed
above can seek approval to do so pursuant to the procedures in Sec.
63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63, which require the owner
or operator to demonstrate that the alternative means of emission
limitation achieves at least equivalent HAP emission reductions as the
controls specified in this proposed rule.
7. Controls for Dry Mechanical Polishing Operations
    For new and existing affected dry mechanical polishing operations,
this proposed rule would require control systems that are designed to
capture the plating and polishing metal HAP emissions from dry
mechanical polishing operations and transport these metal HAP emissions
to cartridge, fabric, or HEPA filters. These control systems include
capture devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake
devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. The use of
such capture devices in combination with cartridge, fabric, or HEPA
filters, if operated according to the manufacturers specifications,
have been demonstrated to achieve 90 percent overall control. Based on
our surveys and a thorough review of the industry, we determined that
the above capture and control devices are currently used by the
industry. Complete capture of the PM, which is a surrogate for metal
HAP, by the exhaust system is not typical in this industry because of
the need for the workers to be close to the polishing wheels and which
precludes the use of total enclosures.
    Facilities that would like to use equipment other than those listed
above can seek approval to do so pursuant to the procedures in Sec.
63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63, which require the owner
or operator to demonstrate that the alternative means of emission
limitation achieves at least equivalent HAP emission reductions as the
controls specified in this proposed rule.

D. What are the initial compliance requirements?

    To demonstrate initial compliance with this proposed rule, owners
or operators of affected new or existing plating and polishing tanks
would certify they have implemented the management and pollution
prevention practices specified in this proposed rule and are
maintaining the appropriate records to document compliance. The owner
or operator of a facility that uses an affected flash electroplating
process would also demonstrate initial compliance by documenting that
the plating tank is operated no more than 1 hour per day or 3 minutes
per hour; or that the tank is covered for at least 95 percent of the
plating time.
    Owners or operators of affected new or existing non-cyanide
electrolytic process tanks that comply with the WAFS requirement would
demonstrate initial compliance with this proposed rule by certifying
that WAFS has been added to the tank when each tank is initially filled
for plating and polishing operations, according to the manufacturer's
specifications and operating instructions. In addition, owners or
operators of all affected electrolytic process tanks would certify that
they have implemented the management and pollution prevention practices
required for all affected plating tanks in this proposed rule.
    As an alternative to the use of WAFS, we are proposing as a
compliance option that owners or operators of affected new or existing
non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks use a control system that
captures the metal HAP emissions from plating tanks and transports
these emissions to CMP, PBS, or MPME. These control systems are known
to be able to achieve at least 95 percent control efficiency if
operated according to the manufacturers' specifications. Owners or
operators can use other devices to the extent those devices provide at
least equivalent HAP emission reductions and are approved in accordance
with the procedures of 40 CFR 63.6(g).
    Owners or operators that choose the alternative compliance option
(i.e., that use either CMP, PBS, or MPME), would certify that they have
installed and are operating an emissions control system according to
the manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions, and that
the control system is designed to provide capture of the metal HAP
emissions from these sources and transport these emissions from the
affected source to CMP, PBS, or MPME which achieve equivalent emission
reductions to the use of WAFS. Capture devices include devices such as
hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with ductwork,
dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. These control systems have been
demonstrated to achieve equivalent emission reductions to the use of
WAFS if operated according with the manufacturer's specifications.
Facilities could demonstrate that other control devices are at least
equivalent for control of metal HAP emissions according to the
procedures in Sec.  63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63.
    The owners or operators of affected new and existing dry mechanical
polishing processes would demonstrate initial compliance by certifying
that they have installed and are operating an emissions control system
according to the manufacturer's specifications and operating
instructions and that the capture system is designed to provide capture
of the metal HAP emissions from these sources and to transport these
emissions from the affected source to cartridge, fabric, or HEPA
filters. Capture devices include devices such as hoods, enclosures, or
any other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds,
plenums, or fans that transport the metal HAP from the process into
cartridge, fabric, or HEPA filters. These control systems have been
demonstrated to achieve 90 percent control if operated according with
the manufacturer's specifications. Facilities could demonstrate that
other control devices are at least equivalent for control of metal HAP
emissions according to the procedures in Sec.  63.6(g) of the General
Provisions to part 63.
    Owners or operators of affected existing thermal spraying processes
would demonstrate initial compliance by certifying that they have
installed and are operating an emissions control system according to
the manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions, and that
the control system is designed to provide capture of the metal HAP
emissions from these sources and to transport these emissions from the
affected source to water curtains, fabric filters, or HEPA filters.
Capture devices include devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other
duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or
fans. These control systems have been demonstrated to achieve at least
90 percent control if operated according to the manufacturer's
specifications. Facilities could demonstrate that other control systems
are at least equivalent for

control of metal HAP emissions according to the procedures in Sec.
63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63.
    Owners or operators of affected new thermal spraying processes
would demonstrate initial compliance by certifying that they have
installed and are operating an emissions control system according to
the manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions and that
the control system is designed to provide capture of the metal HAP
emissions from these sources and transport these emissions from the
affected source to fabric or HEPA filters. Capture devices include
devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices
with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. These control
systems have been demonstrated to achieve 95 percent control if
operated according to the manufacturer's specifications. Facilities
could demonstrate that other control systems are at least equivalent
for control of metal HAP emissions according to the procedures in Sec.
63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63.

E. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

    This proposed rule also requires owners or operators of all
affected plating and polishing process tanks to demonstrate continuous
compliance by adhering to the management and pollution prevention
practices specified in this proposed rule and maintaining the
appropriate records to document compliance.
    For affected non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks that comply by
using WAFS, where the WAFS are purchased separately from other tank
materials, the use of WAFS would be documented every time other bath
ingredients are replenished during the plating process. The WAFS are to
be added in the same proportion as in the original bath, according to
the manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions. Records
would also be maintained of all the chemical additions. The WAFS should
be added in proportion to the amounts of other bath chemistry
ingredients that are added to replenish the tank bath, as in the
original make-up of the tank.
    Owners or operators that comply with the rule by operating control
systems are required to operate and maintain each capture system and
add-on control device according to the manufacturer's specifications
and operating instructions, and to keep these documents at the facility
at all times in a location where it can be easily accessed by the
operators. Owners or operators also are required to maintain records to
document conformance with this requirement.
    The owner or operator of a facility that uses an affected flash
electroplating process would demonstrate continuous compliance by
keeping records of daily plating time; the time the tank operates with
the cover in place, if applicable; and maintaining the appropriate
records to document compliance with the management and pollution
prevention practices specified in this proposed rule.

F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?

    The owner or operator of a new or existing affected source is
required to comply with certain requirements of the General Provisions
to part 63, which are identified in Table 1 of this proposed rule. Each
facility is required to submit an Initial Notification and a
Notification of Compliance Status according to the requirements in 40
CFR 63.9, General Provisions to part 63. The owner or operator of an
affected source is required to submit an annual compliance
certification and, if there were any deviations during the year, a
report that describes the deviations and the corrective action taken.
    Owners and operators also are required to maintain all records that
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with this proposed rule,
including records of all required notifications and reports, with
supporting documentation; and records showing compliance with the
management and pollution prevention practices. Owners and operators
would also maintain records of the following, if applicable: Amount and
frequency of WAFS additions; daily plating time; the time the tank is
operated with a cover in place; and maintenance of any required control
systems.

IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule

A. How did we select the source category?

    Plating and Polishing was listed as an area source category on June
26, 2002 (67 FR 43112). The inclusion of this source category on the
area source category list was based on data from the CAA section 112(k)
inventory, which represents 1990 urban air information. Those data
indicated that plating and polishing plants were contributors to
emissions of five of the listed urban HAP metals: cadmium, chromium,
manganese, nickel, and lead.

B. How did we select the affected sources?

    The affected sources for the proposed rule include plating and
polishing tanks (other than those that are subject to the Chromium
Electroplating NESHAP), dry mechanical polishing operations, and
thermal spray processes, which have the potential to emit the five
plating and polishing metal HAP. We selected these sources because the
plating and polishing metal HAP are used in and have the potential to
be emitted from these sources.
    Electrolytic process tanks emit metal HAP when gas bubbles formed
by the electrolytic process rise to the tank surface and burst; as the
result of bath agitation, particularly when air sparging is practiced;
and from the placing of parts in, or the removal of parts from, the
tank. Non-electrolytic process tanks emit metal HAP as the result of
bath agitation, and from the placing of parts in, or the removal of
parts from, the tank. Emissions of metal HAP from thermal spraying
result from overspray, when the sprayed metal does not contact or
adhere to the target part and becomes entrained in the air. Emissions
of metal HAP from dry mechanical polishing operations occur as the
result of the abrasion of metal surfaces and the subsequent entrainment
of the abraded particles in the air.
    The Plating and Polishing Source Category also was listed as an
area source of TCE emissions. Chlorinated solvents such as TCE are used
as degreasers in the plating industry. We subsequently discovered that
the 1990 emissions data for TCE was for plating facilities that used
TCE in degreasing operations, which are not part of this source
category. Rather, these emission units at both major and area sources
are subject to standards for halogenated solvent cleaning under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart T. Consequently, we are not proposing standards for
TCE from plating and polishing facilities. The plating and polishing
source category listed for TCE emissions remains a listed source
category pursuant to section 112(c)(3) of this part, and this proposed
rule establishes standards for emissions of plating and polishing metal
HAP. Therefore, we are clarifying that we do not need plating and
polishing to meet the section 112(c)(3) 90 percent requirement
regarding area source emissions of TCE.
    Several plating and polishing area source facilities also perform
chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing. The chromium
electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks at these facilities are
already subject to the

Chromium Electroplating NESHAP (subpart N) that apply to both major and
area sources. Therefore, these chromium electroplating and chromium
anodizing tanks would not be affected sources under the proposed rule
although their plating and polishing area source processes would be
subject.

C. How did we subcategorize plating and polishing processes?

    As part of the GACT analysis, we considered whether there were
differences in processes, sizes, or other factors affecting emissions
and control technologies that would warrant subcategorization. Under
section 112(d)(1) of the CAA, EPA ``may distinguish among classes,
types, and sizes within a source category or subcategory in
establishing such standards * * *''
    In our review of the available data, we observed significant
differences in the chemistry and operation of some electroplating and
electroforming processes. We therefore have identified three
subcategories of electrolytic process units: (1) Non-cyanide
electrolytic process tanks, operated at pH less than 12, (2)
Electroplating and electroforming process tanks with cyanide, operated
at a pH greater than or equal to 12; and (3) Flash or short-term
electroplating processes.
    Non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks are operated at pH less than
12, and use WAFS as part of their normal bath chemistry. In
electroplating and electroforming process tanks that have cyanide in
the bath and which have a pH of 12 or greater, there are metal
complexing agents, called anions or ligands, which keep the metals to
be plated in solution as an ionic complex with the result that minimal
emissions of either the anion or metal HAP occur. According to
technical literature, these highly alkaline solutions are self-
regulating and simulate the effect of adding WAFS to the bath. Ionic
baths are used in the plating of brass (copper and zinc), bronze
(copper and tin), cadmium, copper, gold, silver, and zinc, of which
only cadmium is an urban HAP. Note that electropolishing is not
performed with cyanide.
    Flash or short-term electroplating is conducted infrequently and
for short periods of time, on the order of 30 seconds or less as a
quick dip, for no more than 3 minutes total per hour. Facilities that
use this process generally keep the tanks covered and, if the bath is
heated, reduce the heat when the tanks are not in use. General practice
in the industry does not include monitoring WAFS levels or the use of
add-on emission controls. Only a small number of the total tanks in the
plating and polishing industry are ``flash'' plating tanks, and are
estimated to be less than 3 percent of all tanks in the industry.

D. How was GACT determined?

    As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), we are proposing standards
representing GACT for the Plating and Polishing Area Source Category.
As noted in section II of this preamble, the statute requires the
Agency to establish standards for area sources listed pursuant to
section 112(c) based on GACT. The statute does not set any condition
precedent for issuing standards under section 112(d)(5) other than that
the area source category or subcategory at issue must be one that EPA
listed pursuant to section 112(c), which is the case here.
    The tank-based operations of this proposed rule, that include
electroplating (without chromium), electroless plating, and polishing,
have little or no emissions compared to chromium electroplating. We
evaluated the control technologies and management practices that reduce
HAP emissions that are generally available for the Plating and
Polishing Area Source Category. We also considered costs and economic
impacts in determining GACT. We believe the consideration of costs and
economic impacts is especially important for plating and polishing area
sources because requiring additional controls would result in only
marginal reductions in emissions at very high costs for modest
incremental improvement in control for this area source category.
Furthermore, more than 90 percent of plating and polishing plants are
small businesses. We explain our proposed GACT below, in sections (1)
through (5).
1. GACT for All Plating and Polishing Process Tanks
    From the 2006 EPA survey of the industry, we identified several
management and pollution prevention practices that minimize emissions
from plating and polishing process tanks and are commonly used in the
industry. These practices include minimizing bath agitation when
removing and plating parts; maximizing dripping of tank solution back
into bath by extending drip time when removing the tank objects and
using drain boards (also known as drip shields); optimizing the design
of barrels, racks, and parts to minimize dragout of bath solution, such
as by using slotted barrels and tilted racks, or by using designs with
flow-through holes to allow the tank solution to drip back into the
tank; using tank covers whenever possible; and minimizing or reducing
heating during tank operation and when the tanks are not in use.
    The above practices reflect the practices employed by the plating
and polishing area source category. In addition, other source
categories with similar industrial processes use these same management
practices to reduce HAP emissions and water pollution. Because these
practices are standard industry practice, we are proposing that these
practices are GACT for all new and existing affected plating and
polishing processes performed in tanks that include electrolytic
process tanks with and without cyanide, as well as non-electrolytic
process tanks. The costs of implementing these management practices are
reasonable due to the relatively small amount of time needed to perform
the practices, the relatively small amount of materials used, and
especially because they are oftentimes cost savings measures. These
benefits were reported by facilities in the 2006 EPA survey and in
discussions with industry representatives.
    Some of these management and pollution prevention practices also
have the co-benefit of reducing water pollution since they prevent
metal from reaching nearby water systems. These pollution prevention
practices are also recommended for this industry by EPA's Office of
Water for this industry. See ``Development Document for the Final
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products
and Machinery Point Source Category,'' EPA-821-B-03-001, February 2003.
[Available at: http://www.epa.gov/guide/mpm/tdd/index.htm]
2. GACT for Non-cyanide Electrolytic Process Tanks Operated at pH Less
Than 12
    We are proposing GACT for non-cyanide electroplating process tanks,
which operate at pH less than 12, to be the use of WAFS in the plating
bath. This requirement was also the control specified as MACT in the
Chromium Electroplating NESHAP that applies to both major and area
sources.
    All non-cyanide electrolytic plating tanks that operate with a pH
less than 12 include a WAFS in the bath chemistry to prevent gas
bubbles from adhering to the surfaces of work pieces, thereby ensuring
a smooth plating finish. The WAFS also lower the surface tension of the
bath to allow the bath solution to cover or coat, i.e., ``wet,'' the
surfaces of the parts and consequently also lower metal HAP emissions.
Using WAFS to maintain the bath surface tension below specified levels
is one of

the control options specified in the Chromium Electroplating NESHAP.
The use of WAFS is also a pollution prevention technique since it
prevents the metal HAP from being emitted rather than controlling the
metal after it is emitted, as in add-on control strategies.
    A recent ORD study of emissions from nickel plating also showed
that WAFS in nickel electroplating is an effective means of reducing
nickel emissions from electroplating that achieves a comparable post-
control metal HAP emissions concentration as the levels of chromium
under the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards in the
Chromium Electroplating NESHAP. Test data for nickel electroplating
tanks using WAFS that were submitted with the 2006 EPA survey responses
show the same low level of post-control HAP metal emission
concentration as the ORD data.
    Electroforming is essentially the same process as electroplating
except the metal plate is subsequently removed from the plated mold and
becomes the product. Because non-cyanide electroforming bath
chemistries are the same as for non-cyanide electroplating, WAFS are
also used in electroforming baths. Therefore, we are proposing GACT for
non-cyanide electroforming baths, which operate at pH less than 12,
also to be the use of WAFS.
    Electropolishing commonly uses non-HAP acids such as sulfuric and
phosphoric, and occasionally chromic acid (at 5 to 7 percent in the
bath) to prepare the metal surface for plating. For those
electropolishing processes that do use chromic acid, using WAFS
prevents significant chromium emissions.
    For these non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks operated at pH
less than 12, we are also proposing that GACT includes the management
and pollution prevention practices described above in section (1),
``GACT for All Plating and Polishing Process Tanks.'' These practices
reflect the practices employed by the plating and polishing area source
category. In addition, other source categories with similar industrial
processes use these same management practices to reduce HAP emissions
and water pollution. Because these practices are standard industry
practice, we are proposing that these practices are GACT for new and
existing affected non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks operated at pH
less than 12. The costs of implementing these management practices are
reasonable due to the relatively small amount of time needed to perform
the practices; the relatively small amount of materials used, as
reported in the 2006 EPA survey and in discussions with the industry;
and especially because they are cost savings measures.
    Because the tank chemical constituents are depleted as bath liquid
is lost by drag-out of parts and other mechanisms, tank chemical
ingredients often are added ``over the side'' of tanks to maintain the
proper concentrations. Therefore, to ensure continuous compliance with
GACT, we are proposing that non-cyanide electrolytic process tanks add
WAFS to the tank when any other bath ingredient is replenished. For
tanks that purchase WAFS separate from other tank ingredients, we are
proposing that WAFS are to be added when other tank ingredients are
replenished, in the same proportion to the other ingredients as in the
original make-up of the bath. This will ensure that any WAFS that are
lost during the plating and polishing process are replenished.
    As an alternative to the use of WAFS, we are proposing as a
compliance option that owners or operators can use control systems that
include capture devices that are designed to capture the plating and
polishing metal HAP emissions from the tanks and transport these metal
HAP emissions to CMP, PBS, or MPME control devices. These control
systems include capture devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other
duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or
fans. The use of such capture devices in combination with CMP, PBS, and
MPME control devices, if operated according to the manufacturers'
specifications, has been demonstrated to achieve equivalent emission
reductions to WAFS, which we determined to be GACT for non-cyanide
electrolytic process tanks). Add-on controls are used to control water
vapor (steam) and other non-HAP tank ingredients that evaporate from
the tank; these add-on controls also incidentally capture and control
any metal HAP that may be emitted from the tank. Data from the chromium
electroplating industry indicate that CMP, PBS, and MPME achieve
chromium emission control efficiencies of at least 95 percent.
    Because these add-on control devices are not pollution prevention
technologies, and because of the high costs required to purchase,
install, and operate add-on controls for a relatively low level of
plating and polishing metal HAP emissions, these devices are not being
proposed as GACT. From the information acquired during the development
of the Chromium Electroplating NESHAP that applied to similar
electroplating processes in tanks, the cost of using add-on controls to
reduce metal HAP emissions from the electroplating tanks ranged from
$100,000 to $1 million per ton of chromium removed. Much higher costs,
on the order of five to 10 times higher or more, are expected for
plating and polishing process electroplating tanks since the metal HAP
emissions from these tanks are lower due to the higher cathodic
efficiency of the plating and polishing metal HAP as opposed to
chromium. This level of costs would impose a large negative economic
impact upon the area sources in the plating and polishing industry,
which are predominately small businesses. Therefore, we propose that
this technology does not represent GACT for the plating and polishing
area source category.
    Because some facilities already have these control systems in place
or, for new sources, want to control water vapor (steam) and other non-
HAP tank ingredients that evaporate from the tank, we are allowing
these devices as an equivalent alternative to the use of WAFS as GACT
for control of metal HAP from non-cyanide electrolytic plating and
polishing.
3. GACT for Non-Electrolytic (Electroless) Processes
    Under this proposed rule, affected non-electrolytic processes
include electroless nickel plating, chromate conversion coating, nickel
acetate sealing, dichromate sealing, and manganese phosphate coating.
For these processes we are proposing GACT is management and pollution
prevention practices as described above in section (1), ``GACT for All
Plating and Polishing Process Tanks.'' These practices reflect the
practices employed by the plating and polishing area source category.
In addition, other source categories with similar industrial processes
use these same management practices to reduce HAP emissions and water
pollution. Because these practices are standard industry practice, we
are proposing that these practices are GACT for all new and existing
affected non-electrolytic (electroless) processes. The costs of
implementing these management practices are reasonable due to the
relatively small amount of time needed to perform the practices; the
relatively small amount of materials used, as reported in the 2006 EPA
survey and in discussions with the industry; and especially because
they are cost savings measures.
    Emissions of the plating and polishing metal HAP from non-
electrolytic process tanks are significantly lower than are emissions
from electrolytic

process tanks for several reasons. Unlike electrolytic processes, these
processes do not apply electrical currents to the tank baths. As a
result, there is no mechanism that produces the hydrogen and oxygen gas
bubbles which cause the misting from electrolytic tanks; therefore,
fume suppressants are not needed. Furthermore, the non-electrolytic
processes do not require vigorous agitation of the baths, which is
another source of emissions from electrolytic process tanks that can be
significant in some situations. The concentration of metal in non-
electrolytic process tanks also is relatively low. For example, the
concentration of nickel in electroless nickel plating baths is less
than one oz/gal of bath solution (less than 7 g/L), whereas in nickel
electroplating baths, the concentration of nickel is 13 oz/gal (91 g/
L). In manganese phosphate coating, the manganese concentration is less
than 1 percent (v/v). The low chromium emissions from chromium
conversion coating were well documented during development of the OSHA
workplace standard for hexavalent chromium. Consequently, we are
setting GACT as the management and pollution prevention practices
described above in this section.
    Because of the relatively low emissions from these tanks, a
requirement for add-on controls for these operations would not be cost-
effective and would result in costs on the upper end of the estimated
cost impacts for plating and polishing sources, at 10 or more times the
cost levels of $100,000 to $1 million per ton of chromium removed found
for chromium electroplating.
4. GACT for Electroplating and Electroforming Process Tanks With
Cyanide Operated at pH Values Greater Than or Equal to 12
    For cyanide electroplating baths with pH greater than or equal to
12, such as cadmium cyanide plating, metal HAP emissions are minimal
because the metal remains in solution as a metal-cyanide complex. The
chemistry of electroplating baths with cyanide are such that a high pH
(pH >= 12) is maintained to keep the cyanide and metals to be plated in
solution as a metal-cyanide ionic complex, with minimal emissions of
cyanide gas or metal HAP. According to the technical literature, the
self-regulating chemistry of the highly alkaline bath solutions
simulate the effect of adding WAFS to the bath, which is GACT for the
non-cyanide electroplating processes. Cyanide baths are not
intentionally operated at pH less than 12 since unfavorable plating
conditions would occur in the tank, among other negative effects.
    Therefore, we are proposing that GACT for these tanks consists of
the management practices described above in section (1), ``GACT for All
Plating and Polishing Process Tanks.'' These practices reflect the
practices employed by the plating and polishing area source category.
In addition, other source categories with similar industrial processes
use these same management practices to reduce HAP emissions and water
pollution. Because these practices are standard industry practice, we
are proposing that these practices are GACT for electroplating and
electroforming process tanks with cyanide operated at pH values greater
than or equal to 12. The costs of implementing these management
practices are reasonable due to the relatively small amount of time
needed to perform the practices; the relatively small amount of
materials used, as reported in the 2006 EPA survey and in discussions
with the industry; and especially because they are cost savings
measures.
5. GACT for Short-Term or ``Flash'' Electroplating
    In this proposed rule, we define flash electroplating tanks as
those tanks that operate one hour plating per day or 3 minutes per
hour, or tanks that have a cover in place during 95 percent of the
plating time. Plating that occurs for only one hour daily (or 3 minutes
per hour for 24 hours) or tanks that are covered 95 percent of the
plating time have equivalent emissions to plating that is performed
less than 5 percent of the day. Since plating tanks can be operated
continuously, 24 hours per day, this level of operation is equivalent
to 95 percent control of emissions.
    We are proposing that GACT for these short-term operations is the
management and pollution prevention practices described above in
section (1), ``GACT for All Plating and Polishing Process Tanks,'' that
are applicable to this process, such as reducing the heat when not in
use. These management practices reflect the practices employed by the
plating and polishing area source category. In addition, other source
categories with similar industrial processes use these same management
practices to reduce HAP emissions and water pollution. Because these
practices are standard industry practice, we are proposing that these
practices are GACT for short-term or ``flash'' electroplating processes
performed in tanks. The costs of implementing these management
practices are reasonable due to the relatively small amount of time
needed to perform the practices; the relatively small amount of
materials used, as reported in the 2006 EPA survey and in discussions
with the industry; and especially because they are cost savings
measures.
    Because of the combination of low levels of emissions and short
time periods it is not cost-effective to install add-on emission
controls and it would be unnecessarily burdensome to require
recordkeeping of WAFS levels use. From the information acquired during
the development of the Chromium Electroplating NESHAP, which was
described further above, the cost of using add-on controls for similar
electroplating tanks ranged from $100,000 to $1 million per ton of
chromium removed. Much higher costs, on the order of 100 to 200 times
higher or more, are expected for these short-term plating and polishing
process tanks since the metal HAP emissions from these tanks are lower
due to the short periods of time the tanks are used or operate
uncovered. This level of costs would impose a large negative economic
impact upon the area sources in the plating and polishing industry,
which are predominately small businesses. Therefore, we propose that
this technology does not represent GACT for the plating and polishing
area source category.
    Only a small number of the total tanks in the plating and polishing
industry are ``flash'' plating tanks, and are estimated to be less than
3 percent of all the tanks in the industry. Because of the short time
periods for operation of these ``flash'' processes, the emissions from
these processes are equivalent to the 95 percent control achieved by
add-on controls that are GACT for continuous electroplating processes.
6. GACT for Dry Mechanical Polishing Operations
    For new and existing sources of dry mechanical polishing
operations, we are proposing GACT to be control systems that are
designed to provide capture of the plating and polishing metal HAP
emissions from the process and transport these metal HAP emissions to
cartridge, fabric, or HEPA filters. These control systems include
capture devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake
devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. The use of
such capture devices in combination with cartridge, fabric, or HEPA
filters, if operated according to the manufacturers specifications,
have been demonstrated to achieve at least 90 percent overall control.
Based on our surveys and a thorough review of the industry, we
determined that the above

capture and control devices are currently used by the industry.
    Only dry mechanical polishing that has the potential to generate
one or more of the five plating and polishing metal HAP of cadmium,
chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel would be subject to this part of
the standard. This GACT requirement would be an equipment standard.
    Dry mechanical polishing generates a fine metal dust which is
controlled by PM collection systems, using PM as a surrogate for metal
HAP, that include a local capture device exhausted to a filtration
device. These devices are the best available control technology and are
standard practice in the industry to protect the workers and workplace
from PM. Because of the need for the workers to be close to the
polishing wheels, total enclosures around the polishing equipment are
not possible.
    Requiring source testing to determine control efficiency or
emissions would be an economic burden for the facilities that in most
cases are small businesses; therefore, we are proposing that compliance
with GACT is to operate the control devices according to the
manufacturer's instructions.
7. GACT for Thermal Spraying Processes
    For existing thermal spraying processes, we are proposing GACT to
be control systems that are designed to provide capture of the plating
and polishing metal HAP emissions from thermal spraying processes and
transport these metal HAP emissions to water curtains, fabric filters,
or HEPA filters. These control systems include capture devices such as
hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with ductwork,
dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. The use of such capture devices
in combination with water curtains, fabric filters, or HEPA filters, if
operated according to the manufacturers specifications, have been
demonstrated to achieve at least 90 percent overall control. Based on
our surveys and a thorough review of the industry, we determined that
the above capture and control devices are currently used by the
industry.
    This GACT requirement is an equipment standard. Facilities could
demonstrate that other control devices are at least equivalent for
control of metal HAP emissions according to the procedures in Sec.
63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63.
    For new thermal spraying sources, we are proposing that GACT is to
install control systems that are designed to provide capture and
control of the metal HAP emissions from these sources and that
transport these emissions from the affected source to fabric or HEPA
filters. These control systems include capture devices such as hoods,
enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers,
manifolds, plenums, or fans. The use of such capture devices in
combination with fabric or HEPA filters, if operated according to the
manufacturers specifications, have been demonstrated to achieve at
least 95 percent overall control. Based on our surveys and a thorough
review of the industry, we determined that the above capture and
control devices are currently in use by the industry and generally
available for new sources.
    Requiring source testing to determine control efficiency or
emissions would be an economic burden for the facilities that in most
cases are small businesses; therefore, we are proposing that compliance
with GACT is to operate the control devices according to the
manufacturer's instructions.

E. How did we select the compliance requirements?

    We are proposing notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements to ensure compliance with this proposed rule. We are
requiring an Initial Notification and Notification of Compliance Status
because these requirements are consistent with section Sec.  63.9(h) of
the General Provisions to part 63.
    For demonstrating initial compliance, this proposed rule requires
affected facilities to certify that the required management practices
and equipment standards have been implemented; and if applicable, the
existing add-on control devices have been installed properly.
    For demonstrating continuous compliance, the proposed requirements
include annual certifications that the management practices are being
followed and control systems, if any, are being properly operated and
maintained. Because all facilities currently operate at the GACT level
of control and greater than 90 percent of the affected facilities are
small businesses, we are proposing a requirement for the minimum
information necessary to ensure compliance. We believe the proposed
requirements for annual certifications achieve that objective.
    Consequently, we are not requiring emission testing and compliance
with a control efficiency requirement to establish proper operation of
control devices as part of compliance with equipment standards. Testing
a plating and polishing tank would require a ventilation system and
exhaust duct or stack for sampling emissions, and the large majority of
plating and polishing tanks are not equipped with ventilation and
exhaust systems. Emission testing would necessitate installing either a
permanent or temporary exhaust system, which would significantly
increase the costs of the emission test. For these reasons, we are
proposing to allow affected facilities to demonstrate compliance
without incurring the costs of installing ventilation and exhaust
systems and conducting emission tests. Considering that more than 90
percent of the companies that would be affected by this proposed rule
are small businesses, the proposed formats would help to minimize the
burden on the regulated community.
    This proposed rule also would require recordkeeping in accordance
with Sec.  63.10 of the General Provisions to part 63. These records
are needed for EPA to determine compliance with specific rule
requirements.
    Under this proposed rule, each facility would also submit an annual
compliance certification and an annual compliance report. The annual
report identifies deviations, if any, from the equipment and work
practice requirements. We are also proposing annual compliance
certifications and annual compliance reports, which should help
identify facilities with potential compliance issues.
    We are proposing a 2-year period for existing facilities to achieve
compliance. Since many facilities may be subject to EPA rules for the
first time and because most of these facilities are small businesses
with 50 percent of the firms having less than 10 employees, we believe
the 2-year period is needed to provide time for facilities to identify
any changes that are needed to comply with the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements and institute those changes. All new area source
processes or facilities would be required to comply upon the date of
publication of the final rule, or startup, whichever is later.

F. How did we decide to exempt this area source category from title V
permitting requirements?

    We are proposing exemption from title V permitting requirements for
affected facilities in the plating and polishing area source category
for the reasons described below. Section 502(a) of the CAA provides
that the Administrator may exempt an area source category from title V
if she determines that compliance with title V requirements is
``impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome'' on an area
source

category. See CAA section 502(a). In December 2005, in a national
rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in
CAA section 502 and developed a four-factor balancing test for
determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a
particular area source category, such that an exemption from title V is
appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 19, 2005 (``Exemption Rule'').
    The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for
determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' on a
particular area source category include: (1) Whether title V would
result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements,
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that are proposed
for an area source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V
permitting would impose significant burdens on the area source category
and whether the burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the
sources may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70
FR 75324); (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the area
source category would be justified, taking into consideration any
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR
75325); and (4) whether there are implementation and enforcement
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the
NESHAP for the area source category, without relying on title V permits
(70 FR 75326).
    In discussing these factors in the Exemption Rule, we further
explained that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to
which one or more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for
a given source category, and then we assessed whether considered
together those factors demonstrated that compliance with title V
requirements would be `unnecessarily burdensome' on the category,
consistent with section 502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, in
the Exemption Rule, we explained that not all of the four factors must
weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to determine that title V is
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category.
Instead, the factors are to be considered in combination, and EPA
determines whether the factors, taken together, support an exemption
from title V for a particular source category.
    In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome
on an area source category, we considered, consistent with the guidance
provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether
exempting the area source category would adversely affect public
health, welfare or the environment. See 70 FR 15254-15255, March 25,
2005. We have determined that the proposed exemptions from title V
would not adversely affect public health, welfare and the environment.
Our rationale for this decision follows here.
    In considering the proposed exemption from title V requirements for
sources in the category affected by this proposed rule, we first
compared the title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements (factor one) to the requirements in the proposed NESHAP
for the Plating and Polishing area source category. EPA determined that
the management practices currently used by plating and polishing
facilities is GACT, and this proposed rule would require recordkeeping,
which serves as monitoring and deviation reporting, to assure
compliance with the NESHAP. The monitoring component of the first
factor favors title V exemption because this proposed standard would
provide for monitoring in the form of recordkeeping that would assure
compliance with the requirements of this proposed rule. This proposed
NESHAP would require annual compliance certification and annual
deviation reports which should call attention to those facilities in
need of supervision to the state agency in the same way as a title V
permit. Monitoring other than recordkeeping would not be practical or
appropriate because the requirements are management practices. Records
would be required to ensure that the management practices are followed,
including such records as the amount of WAFS added to the plating
tanks.
    As part of the first factor, we have considered the extent to which
title V could potentially enhance compliance for area sources covered
by this proposed rule through recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
We have considered the various title V recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, including requirements for a 6-month monitoring report,
deviation reports, and an annual certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6.
For any affected plating and polishing area source facility, this
proposed NESHAP would require an Initial Notification and a
Notification of Compliance Status. This proposed Plating and Polishing
NESHAP also would require affected facilities to maintain records
showing compliance with the required equipment standard and management
practices. The information that would be required in the notifications
and records is similar to the information that would be provided in the
deviation reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3). We acknowledge that title V might impose additional
compliance requirements on this category, but we have determined that
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of this
proposed NESHAP for plating and polishing would be sufficient to assure
compliance with the provisions of the NESHAP, and title V would not
significantly improve those compliance requirements.
    For the second factor, we determine whether title V permitting
would impose a significant burden on the area sources in the category
and whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the
source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency.
Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and
costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. EPA estimated
that the average cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit
was $38,500 per source for a 5-year permit period, including fees. See
ICR for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR
Number 1587.05. EPA does not have specific estimates for the burdens
and costs of permitting plating and polishing area sources; however,
there are certain activities associated with the part 70 and 71 rules.
These activities are mandatory and impose burdens on the facility. They
include reading and understanding permit program guidance and
regulations; obtaining and understanding permit application forms;
answering follow-up questions from permitting authorities after the
application is submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit;
collecting records; preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-
month or more frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation
reports, as defined by the State, which may include a combination of
written, verbal, and other communications methods; collecting
information, preparing, and submitting the annual compliance
certification; preparing applications for permit revisions every 5
years; and, as needed, preparing and submitting applications for permit
revisions. In addition, although not required by the permit rules, many
sources obtain the contractual services of consultants to help them
understand and meet the permitting program's requirements. The ICR for
part 70 provides additional information on the overall burdens and

costs, as well as the relative burdens of each activity. Also, for a
more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70 sources
(hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5,
70.6, and 70.7.
    In assessing the second factor for plating and polishing
facilities, we found that nearly all of the approximately 2,900 plating
and polishing facilities affected by this proposed rule are small
businesses, some with as few as one or two employees. These small
sources lack the technical resources that would be needed to comply
with permitting requirements and the financial resources that would be
needed to hire the necessary staff or outside consultants. As discussed
previously, title V permitting would impose significant costs on these
area sources, and, accordingly, we propose that title V would be a
significant burden for sources in this category. More than 90 percent
of the facilities that would be subject to this proposed rule are small
businesses with limited resources, and under title V they would be
subject to numerous mandatory activities with which they would have
difficulty complying, whether they were issued a standard or a general
permit. Furthermore, given the number of sources in the category and
the relatively small size of many of those sources, it would likely be
difficult for them to obtain assistance from the permitting authority.
Thus, we believe that the second factor strongly supports the proposed
title V exemption for plating and polishing facilities.
    The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance
likely to occur for such sources. We explained for the second factor
that the costs of compliance with title V would impose a significant
burden on nearly all of the approximately 2,900 plating and polishing
facilities affected by this proposed rule. We also believe in
considering the first factor that, while title V might impose
additional requirements, the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in this proposed NESHAP would assure compliance with the
equipment standard and management practices imposed in the NESHAP. In
addition, in our consideration of the fourth factor, we find that there
are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure
compliance with the NESHAP. Because the costs, both economic and non-
economic, of compliance with title V are so high, and the potential for
gains in compliance is low, we propose that title V permitting is not
justified for this source category. Accordingly, the third factor
supports the proposed title V exemptions for plating and polishing area
sources.
    The fourth factor we considered in determining if title V is
unnecessarily burdensome is whether there are implementation and
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance
with the NESHAP without relying on title V permits. There are State
programs in place to enforce this area source NESHAP, and we believe
that the State programs will be sufficient to assure compliance with
this NESHAP. We also note that EPA retains authority to enforce this
NESHAP anytime under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114. We further note
that small business assistance programs required by CAA section 507 may
be used to assist area sources that have been exempted from title V
permitting. Also, States and EPA often conduct voluntary compliance
assistance, outreach, and education programs (compliance assistance
programs), which are not required by statute. These additional programs
would supplement and enhance the success of compliance with this area
source NESHAP. We believe that the statutory requirements for
implementation and enforcement of this NESHAP by the delegated States
and EPA, combined with the additional assistance programs would be
sufficient to assure compliance with this area source NESHAP without
relying on title V permitting.
    In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted,
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to assure
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we do not have
similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the Exemption
rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent
in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have
adequate programs to enforce the section 112 regulations and provide
assurances that they will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate
the program. See 40 CFR part 63, General Provisions, subpart E.
    In light of all the information presented here, we believe that
there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are
sufficient to assure compliance with the Plating and Polishing NESHAP
without relying on title V permitting.
    Balancing the four factors for this area source category strongly
supports the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome.
While title V might add additional compliance requirements if imposed,
we believe that there would not be significant improvements to the
compliance requirements in the NESHAP because the requirements in this
proposed rule are specifically designed to assure compliance with the
standards and management practices imposed on this area source
category. We further maintain that the economic and non-economic costs
of compliance with title V, in conjunction with the likely difficulty
this number of small sources would have obtaining assistance from the
permitting authority, would impose a significant burden on the sources.
In addition, the high relative costs would not be justified given that
there is likely to be little or no potential gain in compliance if
title V were required. And, finally, there are adequate implementation
and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP.
Thus, we propose that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' for the Plating and Polishing area source category.
    In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' EPA also considered,
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section
502(a), whether exempting the Plating and Polishing area source
category from title V requirements would adversely affect public
health, welfare, or the environment. Exemption of the Plating and
Polishing area source category from title V requirements would not
adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment because the
level of control would remain the same if a permit were required. The
title V permit program does not impose new substantive air quality
control requirements on sources, but instead requires that certain
procedural measures be followed, particularly with respect to
determining compliance with applicable requirements. As stated in our
consideration of factor one for this category, title V would not lead
to significant improvements in the compliance requirements applicable
to existing or new area sources.

    Furthermore, we explained in the Exemption Rule that requiring
permits for the large number of area sources could, at least in the
first few years of implementation, potentially adversely affect public
health, welfare, or the environment by shifting State agency resources
away from assuring compliance for major sources with existing permits
to issuing new permits for these area sources, potentially reducing
overall air program effectiveness. Based on this analysis, we believe
that title V exemptions for plating and polishing area sources would
not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment for all
of the reasons previously explained.
    For the reasons stated here, we are proposing to exempt the Plating
and Polishing area source category from title V permitting
requirements.

V. Impacts of the Proposed Standards

A. What are the air impacts?

    Since 1990, the plating and polishing industry has reduced their
air impacts by voluntary controls that were likely motivated by
concerns for worker safety. These controls would have reduced
approximately 20 tons of the metal HAP (cadmium, chromium, lead,
manganese, and nickel) attributed to this industry in the 1990 urban
HAP inventory. Although there are no additional air emission reductions
as a result of this proposed rule, we believe that this proposed rule
will assure that the emission reductions made by the industry since
1990 will be maintained.
    Along with the HAP described above, there is an undetermined amount
of PM that has been co-controlled in thermal spraying and mechanical
polishing processes that contributed to criteria pollutant emissions in
1990.

B. What are the cost impacts?

    All facilities are expected to be achieving the level of control
required by the proposed standard; therefore, no additional air
pollution control devices or systems are required. Many of the
management and pollution prevention practices are expected to provide a
cost savings for facilities, as reported by facilities in the 2006 EPA
survey. Therefore, no capital costs are associated with this proposed
rule. No operation and maintenance costs are associated with this
proposed rule because facilities are already following the
manufacturer's instructions for operation and maintenance of pollution
control devices and systems.
    We estimate the only impact to affected sources is the labor burden
associated with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The cost
associated with recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated
to be $722 per facility after the first year, or less than 0.04 percent
of revenues. Costs for initial notifications in the first year are
estimated at $380 per facility, for a total of $1,115 per facility in
the first year for all costs. Detailed information on our impact
estimates for the affected sources is available in the docket. (See
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0084.)

C. What are the economic impacts?

    This proposed standard is estimated to impact a total of 2,900 area
source facilities. We estimate that more than 2,600 of these facilities
are small entities. Our analysis indicates that this proposed rule
would not impose a significant adverse impact on any facilities, large
or small. The economic impacts are estimated to be less than 0.04
percent of revenues.

D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy impacts?

    No detrimental secondary impacts are expected to occur because all
facilities are currently achieving the GACT level of control.
Therefore, no facilities would be required to install and operate new
or additional control devices or systems. In addition, no facilities
would be required to install and operate monitoring devices or systems.
Therefore, no additional solid waste would be generated as a result of
the PM and metal HAP emissions collected. There also are no additional
energy impacts associated with operation of control devices or
monitoring systems.
    Because some of the management practices we are proposing in this
proposed rule also have the potential co-benefit of reducing water
pollution, there would be a beneficial effect of this proposed rule to
reduce water pollution. However, today's proposed regulatory changes
will not: (1) Increase the amount of discharged wastewater pollutants
at the industry or facility levels; or (2) interfere with the ability
of facilities in the plating and polishing area source category to
comply with the Clean Water Act requirements (e.g., Metal Finishing
Effluent Guidelines, 40 CFR Part 433).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The ICR document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2294.01.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this proposed rule
are based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP General Provisions to
part 63. This proposed NESHAP requires plating and polishing area
sources to submit an Initial Notification and a Notification of
Compliance Status according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the
General Provisions to part 63.
    Records would be required to demonstrate compliance with good
operation and maintenance of capture systems and control devices, use
of wetting agents and fume suppressants, plating time, use of tank
covers, and other management practices. The owner or operator of a
plating and polishing facility also is subject to notification and