National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area Source Standards for Plating and Polishing Operations, 14126-14151 [E8-4974]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 51 (Friday, March 14, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14126-14151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-4974]



[[Page 14125]]

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 51 / Friday, March 14, 2008 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 14126]]


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

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:
     https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744.
     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 
https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://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 https://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 https://
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 https://
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 (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 
Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Donna Lee Jones, Sector Policies 
and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(D243-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5251; fax number: 
(919) 541-3207; e-mail address: jones.donnalee@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards
    A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for 
the proposed standards?
    B. What source 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

[[Page 14127]]

    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 https://
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: 
https://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 (919) 541-7966 to verify 
that a hearing will be held. If a public hearing is held, it will be 
held at 10 a.m. 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.

[[Page 14128]]

    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

[[Page 14129]]

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

[[Page 14130]]

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

[[Page 14131]]

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

[[Page 14132]]

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.

[[Page 14133]]

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

[[Page 14134]]

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 pursuan