6628 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0600; FRL–9626–7] 

RIN 2060–AQ60 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: 

Hard and Decorative Chromium 

Electroplating and Chromium 

Anodizing Tanks; and Steel PicklingHCl Process Facilities and 

Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This action supplements our 

proposed amendments to National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutant Emissions for Hard and 

Decorative Chromium Electroplating 

and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; and 

Steel Pickling-HCl Process Facilities and 

Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants, 

which were published on October 21, 

2010 (75 FR 65068, October 21, 2010). 

In that action, EPA proposed 

amendments to these NESHAP under 

section 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) of the Clean 

Air Act. Specifically, this action 

presents a new technology review and a 

new residual risk analysis for chromium 

electroplating and anodizing facilities 

and proposes revisions to the NESHAP 

based on those reviews. This action also 

proposes to remove an alternative 

compliance method for Steel Pickling 

hydrochloric acid regeneration plants. 

Finally, this action proposes to 

incorporate electronic reporting 

requirements into both NESHAP. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 26, 2012. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on 

the information collection provisions 

are best assured of having full effect if 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) receives a copy of your 

comments on or before March 9, 2012. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by February 21, 2012, a public 

hearing will be held on February 23, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0600, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0600 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0600. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send 

comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA 

West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0600, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

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 Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA West (Air 

Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0600. 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–2010– 

0600. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 www.regulations.gov 

or email. The 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 email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0600. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the 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. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket 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 EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Mr. Phil Mulrine, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (D243– 

02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541– 

5289; fax number: (919) 541–3207; and 

email address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov. 

For specific information regarding the 

risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. 

Mark Morris, Health and Environmental 

Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–5416; fax 

number: (919) 541–0840; and email 

address: morris.mark@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Organization of this Document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

D. When would a public hearing occur? 

II. Background Information 

A. Overview of the Chromium 

Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing 

Source Categories 

B. What is the history of the chromium 

electroplating and chromium anodizing 

risk and technology reviews? 

C. Overview of the steel pickling source 

category 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6629 

D. What is the history of the Steel Pickling 

Risk and Technology Review? 

E. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

III. Analyses Performed 

A. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

B. For purposes of this supplemental 

proposal, how did we estimate the risk 

posed by each of the three chromium 

electroplating source categories? 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions for the Three Chromium 

Electroplating Source Categories 

A. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

B. What are the results of the risk 

assessment? 

C. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability and ample 

margin of safety? 

D. Compliance Dates 

V. What action are we proposing for the steel 

pickling source category? 

A. Elimination of an Alternative 

Compliance Option 

B. Compliance Dates 

VI. What other actions are we proposing? 

A. Electronic Reporting 

VII. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the emission reductions? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

VIII. Request for Comments 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

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 industrial source 

categories that are the subject of this 

proposal are listed in Table 1 to this 

preamble. Table 1 is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by the proposed action for the 

source categories listed. These 

standards, and any changes considered 

in this rulemaking, would be directly 

applicable to sources as a federal 

program. Thus, federal, state, local, and 

tribal government entities are not 

affected by this proposed action. Table 

1 shows the regulated categories 

affected by this proposed action. 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION

NESHAP and source category NAICS code 1 MACT code 2

Chromium Electroplating NESHAP, Subpart N .............. Chromium Anodizing Tanks ........................................... 332813 1607 

Decorative Chromium Electroplating .............................. 332813 1610 

Hard Chromium Electroplating ....................................... 332813 1615 

Steel Pickling—HCl Process Facilities And Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants NESHAP, Subpart CCC 3311, 3312 0310 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

2 Maximum Achievable Control Technology. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposal will also be available on the 

World Wide Web (WWW) through the 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, 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/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

Additional information is available on 

the residual risk and technology review 

(RTR) web page at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This 

information includes source category 

descriptions and detailed emissions and 

other data that were used as inputs to 

the risk assessments. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to the 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. If you 

submit a CD–ROM or disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM clearly that it does not 

contain CBI. Information not marked as 

CBI will be included in the public 

docket and the EPA’s electronic public 

docket without prior notice. Information 

marked as CBI will not be disclosed 

except in accordance with procedures 

set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0600. 

D. When would a public hearing occur? 

If a public hearing is held, it will be 

held at 10:00 a.m. on February 23, 2012 

and will be held at a location to be 

determined. Persons interested in 

presenting oral testimony at the hearing 

should contact Mr. Phil Mulrine, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

(D243–02), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541– 

5289; fax number: (919) 541–3207; 

email address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6630 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

II. Background Information 

A. Overview of the Chromium 

Electroplating and Chromium 

Anodizing Source Categories 

The Chromium Electroplating 

NESHAP regulates emissions of 

chromium compounds from three 

source categories: hard chromium 

electroplating, decorative chromium 

electroplating, and chromium 

anodizing. The NESHAP apply to both 

major sources and area sources. The 

NESHAP were promulgated on January 

25, 1995 (60 FR 4963) and codified at 

40 CFR part 63, subpart N. We proposed 

amendments to the NESHAP on June 5, 

2002 (67 FR 38810) to address issues 

related to changes in control technology, 

monitoring and implementation. The 

amendments were promulgated on July 

19, 2004 (69 FR 42885). 

1. Hard Chromium Electroplating 

The Hard Chromium Electroplating 

source category consists of facilities that 

plate base metals with a relatively thick 

layer of chromium using an electrolytic 

process. Hard chromium electroplating 

provides a finish that is resistant to 

wear, abrasion, heat, and corrosion. 

These facilities plate large cylinders and 

industrial rolls used in construction 

equipment and printing presses, 

hydraulic cylinders and rods, zinc die 

castings, plastic molds, engine 

components, and marine hardware. 

The NESHAP distinguishes between 

large hard chromium electroplating 

facilities and small hard chromium 

electroplating facilities. Large hard 

chromium electroplating facilities are 

defined as any such facility with a 

cumulative annual rectifier capacity 

equal to or greater than 60 million 

ampere-hours per year (amp-hr/yr). 

Small hard chromium electroplating 

facilities are defined as any facility with 

a cumulative annual rectifier capacity 

less than 60 million amp-hr/yr. The 

NESHAP requires all affected tanks 

located at large hard chromium 

electroplating facilities to meet an 

emissions limit of 0.015 milligrams per 

dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm). 

Alternatively, large hard chromium 

facilities also can comply with the 

NESHAP by maintaining the surface 

tension limits in affected tanks equal to 

or less than 45 dynes per centimeter 

(dynes/cm), if measured using a 

stalagmometer, or 35 dynes/cm, if 

measured using a tensiometer. 

The Chromium Electroplating 

NESHAP requires affected tanks at 

existing small hard chromium 

electroplating facilities to meet an 

emissions limit of 0.030 mg/dscm and 

affected tanks at new small hard 

chromium electroplating facilities to 

meet a limit of 0.015 mg/dscm. 

Alternatively, these sources have the 

option of complying with surface 

tension limits equal to or less than 45 

dynes per centimeter (dynes/cm), if 

measured using a stalagmometer, or 35 

dynes/cm, if measured using a 

tensiometer. Under the current 

NESHAP, any small hard chromium 

electroplating tank for which 

construction or reconstruction was 

commenced on or before December 16, 

1993 (i.e., the proposal date for the 

original NESHAP) is subject to the 

existing source standards and any small 

hard chromium electroplating tank 

constructed or reconstructed after 

December 16, 1993 is subject to new 

source standards. 

We estimate that there currently are 

approximately 230 large hard chromium 

electroplating facilities and 450 small 

hard chromium electroplating facilities 

in operation. Of the 450 small hard 

chromium electroplating facilities, we 

estimate that 150 of these facilities have 

one or more tanks that are subject to the 

new source standards, and the affected 

sources at the other 300 facilities are 

subject to the existing source standards. 

2. Decorative Chromium Electroplating 

The Decorative Chromium 

Electroplating source category consists 

of facilities that plate base materials 

such as brass, steel, aluminum, or 

plastic with layers of copper and nickel, 

followed by a relatively thin layer of 

chromium to provide a bright, tarnishand wear-resistant surface. Decorative 

chromium electroplating is used for 

items such as automotive trim, metal 

furniture, bicycles, hand tools, and 

plumbing fixtures. We estimate that 

there currently are approximately 590 

decorative chromium electroplating 

plants in operation. The NESHAP 

requires all existing and new decorative 

chromium electroplating sources to 

meet an emissions limit of 0.01 mg/ 

dscm, or meet the surface tension limits 

of 45 dynes/cm, if measured using a 

stalagmometer, or 35 dynes/cm, if 

measured using a tensiometer. 

3. Chromium Anodizing 

The Chromium Anodizing source 

category consists of facilities that use 

chromic acid to form an oxide layer on 

aluminum to provide resistance to 

corrosion. The chromium anodizing 

process is used to coat aircraft parts 

(such as wings and landing gears) as 

well as architectural structures that are 

subject to high stress and corrosive 

conditions. We estimate that there 

currently are about 180 chromium 

anodizing plants in operation. The 

NESHAP requires all existing and new 

chromium anodizing sources to meet an 

emissions limit of 0.01 mg/dscm, or 

meet the surface tension limits of 45 

dynes/cm, if measured using a 

stalagmometer, or 35 dynes/cm, if 

measured using a tensiometer. 

B. What is the history of the chromium 

electroplating and chromium anodizing 

risk and technology reviews? 

Pursuant to section 112(f)(2) of the 

CAA, we evaluated the residual risk 

associated with the NESHAP in 2010. At 

that time, we also conducted a 

technology review, as required by 

section 112(d)(6). Based on the results of 

our initial residual risk and technology 

reviews, we proposed on October 21, 

2010 (75 FR 65071) that the risks due to 

HAP emissions from these source 

categories were acceptable and that no 

additional controls were necessary to 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health because we had 

not identified additional controls that 

would reduce risk at reasonable costs. 

Thus, we did not propose to revise the 

NESHAP under 112(f)(2). However, as 

explained in that proposal publication, 

we were concerned about the potential 

cancer risks due to emissions from this 

category and asked for additional 

information and comments on this 

issue. 

As a result of our technology review 

in 2010, we proposed the following 

amendments to the NESHAP to: 

• Incorporate several housekeeping 

practices into 40 CFR 63.342(f); 

• phase out the use of wetting agent 

fume suppressants (WAFS) based on 

perfluorooctyl sulfonates (PFOS); 

• revise the startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction provisions (SSM) in the 

rule; 

• revise the monitoring and testing 

requirements; and, 

• make a few technical corrections to 

the NESHAP. 

The comment period for the October 

21, 2010 proposal ended on December 6, 

2010, and we are not re-opening the 

comment period on those issues. 

However, we will address the comments 

we received during the October 21, 2010 

to December 6, 2010 public comment 

period at the time we take final action. 

C. Overview of the Steel Pickling Source 

Category 

Steel pickling is a treatment process 

in which the heavy oxide crust or mill 

scale that develops on the steel surface 

during hot forming or heat treating is 

removed chemically in a bath of 

aqueous acid solution. Pickling is a 

process applied to metallic substances 

that removes surface impurities, stains, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6631 

or crusts to prepare the metal for 

subsequent plating (e.g., with 

chromium) or other treatment, such as 

galvanization or painting. An acid 

regeneration plant is defined in the rule 

as the equipment and processes that 

regenerate fresh hydrochloric acid 

pickling solution from spent pickle 

liquor using a thermal treatment 

process. The HAP emission points from 

the steel pickling process include steel 

pickling baths, steel pickling sprays, 

and tank vents. The HAP emission point 

from acid regeneration plants is the 

spray roaster. 

We estimate that there are 

approximately 80 facilities subject to the 

MACT standards that are currently 

performing steel pickling and/or acid 

regeneration. Many of these facilities are 

located adjacent to integrated iron and 

steel manufacturing plants or electric 

arc furnace steelmaking facilities 

(minimills) that produce steel from 

scrap. Facilities that regenerate HCl may 

or may not be located at steel pickling 

operations. 

D. What is the history of the steel 

pickling risk and technology review? 

Pursuant to section 112(f)(2) of the 

CAA, we evaluated the residual risk 

associated with the NESHAP in 2010. 

We also conducted a technology review, 

as required by section 112(d)(6) of the 

CAA. Based on the results of our 

residual risk assessment, we proposed 

on October 21, 2010 that the risks were 

acceptable and that there were no 

additional cost effective controls to 

reduce risk further and that the 

NESHAP provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health and 

prevented an adverse environmental 

effect. In that notice, we also proposed 

no changes based on the technology 

review because we did not identify any 

new, feasible technologies that 

warranted changes to the NESHAP. We 

are not taking comment on these 

proposed determinations. 

E. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

1. Chromium Electroplating and 

Chromium Anodizing Source Categories 

Several commenters expressed 

concern that the data set used in the risk 

assessment that was relied on for the 

October 2010 proposal was not based on 

actual data from an adequate number of 

facilities and was not representative of 

the current chromium electroplating 

industry. In response to these 

comments, we contacted 28 State and 

local air pollution control agencies to 

request information on the industry. 

The requested information included 

facility data (name, location, number of 

employees), process type, tank design 

and operating parameters, annual hours 

of operation, emission control 

technology, control device operating 

parameters, emission test data, and 

other available supporting documents, 

such as emission inventory reports and 

operating permits. Agencies were asked 

to provide data on the 5 to 10 facilities 

that were likely to have the highest risk 

based on either chromium emissions or 

close proximity to sensitive receptors, 

and any additional facilities for which 

the data were readily available. The 

agencies were also asked to review the 

list of facilities we had in our 

Chromium Electroplating Database and 

update the list to the extent that they 

had more recent information on plant 

closings, new plants, or changes in 

processes. 

We received the most current data 

available from a total of 24 agencies. We 

supplemented the data provided by the 

agencies with additional information we 

obtained from operating permits and 

other information downloaded from 

State Web sites. We also received some 

data from an industry organization (i.e., 

the National Association for Surface 

Finishing, located in Washington, DC). 

The updated data set included 

information on 346 plants. After 

eliminating redundancies in the data 

and deleting data for facilities that were 

no longer in operation or no longer 

performing chromium electroplating or 

anodizing, the new data set included 

annual emissions for 301 plants 

currently in operation. Of these, 

approximately 128 plants were located 

in California, and 173 plants were 

located in other States. Finally, we 

performed a quality control check of 

plant geographic coordinates and 

updated the coordinates for 

approximately 400 plants, focusing on 

those plants most likely to have high 

emissions. 

We believe the current data set to be 

significantly better than the data set we 

relied on for the 2010 proposal for a 

number of reasons. The current data set 

provides improved emissions estimates 

for many facilities, based on actual 

emissions test data; provides actual 

emissions data for a larger number of 

facilities than had been modeled for the 

2010 proposal; includes an updated 

plant list that accounts for facilities that 

have opened recently and eliminates 

nearly 200 plants that have recently 

closed or have stopped performing 

chromium electroplating; includes more 

plant-specific data on numbers and 

types of electroplating tanks, types of 

emissions controls, and control system 

operating parameters; and corrected 

geographic locations (latitudes, 

longitudes) for hundreds of chromium 

electroplating and anodizing facilities. 

For the October 21, 2010, proposal we 

used the actual emissions data available 

at the time, which covered far fewer 

plants, and, in many cases, were based 

on general emission factors and other 

data not specific to the plant in 

question. To fill in data gaps for the 

October 2010 proposal, we relied on 

plant capacity, process design, process 

operating, and control device data 

collected during the development of the 

original MACT standard in the early 

1990’s to develop a series of model 

plants for each process (hard chromium 

electroplating, decorative chromium 

electroplating, and chromium 

anodizing). We used theoretical 

emissions estimates for the model plants 

to represent actual facilities in 

operation. As we have collected much 

more data on actual emissions from 

facilities currently in operation, we now 

realize that the emission estimates based 

on pre-MACT data used for the October 

proposal significantly overestimated 

emissions. In addition, we modeled all 

of the unknown facilities (i.e., the 

facilities where we did not know the 

type of plating) using the hard 

chromium electroplating emission factor 

developed from the model plants. Since 

hard chromium electroplating facilities 

have the highest emissions among the 

three source categories this resulted in 

very conservative estimates of emissions 

for those unknown sources. 

The list of plants in our current data 

set much better reflects the current 

status of the industry. First, it better 

reflects the status because we have 

greatly improved the locations of several 

hundred plants, which is critical in 

assessing risk. Second, the emissions 

data in the current data set better reflect 

actual emissions from facilities 

currently in operation because it reflects 

emission levels since implementation of 

the NESHAP. 

In addition, having more accurate 

data on such things as the emission 

controls in use, the number of affected 

electroplating and anodizing tanks, tank 

operating parameters, facility types, 

stack parameters (such as exhaust flow 

rates), and other information allowed us 

to better estimate current nationwide 

emissions and the cost and 

environmental impacts associated with 

the control options. More details on the 

data collection activities for this 

supplemental proposal are provided in 

the technical document ‘‘Information on 

Chromium Electroplating Facilities 

Collected from State and Local Agencies 

from January to March 2011,’’ which is 

available in the docket for this action. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6632 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Additional details on the industry data 

collected are provided in the technical 

document ‘‘Profile of Chromium 

Electroplating Processes and 

Emissions,’’ which is available in the 

docket for this action. 

2. Steel Pickling Source Category 

We had sufficient emissions data for 

this source category at the time of the 

October 21, 2010 proposal for the risk 

analysis. Nevertheless, subsequent to 

the close of the comment period, we 

gathered more data and information 

regarding the status of facility processes 

and controls, and we further evaluated 

the MACT rule to determine if any 

updates or corrections would be 

appropriate. 

III. Analyses Performed 

A. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

For our October 2010 proposal, we 

performed several activities for 

purposes of evaluating developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies for the chromium 

electroplating source categories: (1) We 

reviewed comments received on the 

proposed 2002 amendments to the 

Chromium Electroplating NESHAP (67 

FR 38810, June 5, 2002) to determine 

whether they identified any 

developments that warranted further 

consideration; (2) we reviewed the 

supporting documentation for the 2007 

amendments to California’s Airborne 

Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for 

Chromium Plating and Chromium 

Anodizing Facilities; and (3) we 

searched the RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse (RBLC) and the Internet 

to identify other practices, processes, or 

control technologies that could be 

applied to chromium electroplating. 

The October 21, 2010 proposal of the 

Chromium Electroplating NESHAP 

identified four developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies that were considered for 

the technology review: emission 

elimination devices, high efficiency 

particulate air (HEPA) filters, wetting 

agent fume suppressants (WAFS), and 

housekeeping practices. These 

technologies and practices are described 

in detail in the October 2010 proposal. 

Furthermore, our initial analyses, 

findings, and conclusions regarding 

these developments are discussed in the 

preamble to the October 2010 proposal. 

The following paragraphs describe 

additional analyses that were performed 

for today’s supplemental proposal. 

1. Emissions Limits 

a. Large Hard Chromium 

Electroplating. Most large hard 

chromium facilities currently have one 

or more add-on control devices such as 

packed bed scrubbers (PBS), composite 

mesh pad (CMP) scrubbers, mesh pad 

mist eliminators (MPMEs), high 

efficiency scrubbers, or HEPA filters. 

Some facilities use add-on controls plus 

WAFS to limit emissions. However, 

some facilities control their emissions 

using only WAFS and have no add-on 

control device. 

To evaluate how effective the 

emission control technologies currently 

used on existing large hard chromium 

electroplating sources are in reducing 

emissions and meeting the emissions 

limit, we compiled the available data on 

emission concentration (mg/dscm) we 

collected from the 24 State and local 

agencies and ranked the data from 

lowest to highest. We have data from 75 

tanks located at 38 facilities. We then 

reviewed the data to better understand 

where existing sources operated with 

respect to the emissions limit. That is, 

we looked at the number of sources that 

operated at or below various emission 

levels, including 75 percent of the 

emissions limit, 50 percent of the 

emissions limit, and 40 percent of the 

emissions limit. 

The data indicate that most of these 

sources operate well below the 0.015 

mg/dscm emissions limit. For example, 

approximately 88 percent of existing 

sources operate at less than 75 percent 

of the emissions limit (i.e., below 0.011 

mg/dscm); 72 percent of sources operate 

at less than 50 percent of the emissions 

limit (i.e., below 0.0075 mg/dscm); and 

about 67 percent of existing large hard 

chromium electroplating sources 

achieve emissions below 0.006 mg/ 

dscm. We then considered several 

options for reducing the emissions and 

weighed the costs and emissions 

reductions associated with each option. 

Further discussion of these options and 

the proposed decisions are presented in 

section IV below. 

For purpose of addressing new large 

chromium electroplating facilities, we 

considered the feasibility of a more 

stringent emissions limit. Specifically, 

we examined what emission level could 

be met using available add-on control 

devices (such as with a CMP, MPME, or 

high efficiency scrubber) or a 

combination of add-on controls (such as 

a CMP plus a HEPA filter or an MPME 

plus a HEPA filter) and the emissions 

concentrations that could be achieved 

by using a combination of add-on 

control technology and WAFS. The 

results of this analysis and the proposed 

decisions are described in section IV 

below. 

b. Small Hard Chromium 

Electroplating. For small hard 

chromium electroplating facilities, we 

performed the same type of analyses 

described in the previous section for 

large hard chromium electroplating. In 

terms of emissions limits, the NESHAP 

distinguishes between existing facilities, 

which are subject to an emissions limit 

of 0.030 mg/dscm, and new facilities, 

which are subject to an emissions limit 

of 0.015 mg/dscm. We compiled and 

ranked the available data, which also 

indicate that the large majority of 

sources operate well below the current 

emissions limits. We have data on 

emissions concentrations for 73 tanks at 

56 facilities located in States other than 

California which were used for this 

ranking. We estimate that there are a 

total of 414 small hard chromium plants 

located in States other than California. 

We estimate that there are a total of 450 

plants nationwide, with about 36 plants 

located in California. We considered 

different options for reducing the 

emissions limits. We also considered 

removing the existing distinction 

between existing and new, as they are 

currently defined in the NESHAP, 

because many of the ‘‘new’’ facilities 

have been in operation for more than 17 

years and we were considering 

proposing a more stringent new source 

standard for all sources. We evaluated 

the impacts, in terms of costs and 

emissions reductions, that would result 

for various potential proposed 

emissions limits at or below 0.015 mg/ 

dscm. We did not evaluate potential 

limits greater than 0.015 mg/dscm since 

about one-third of the currently 

operating small hard chromium sources 

are already subject to an emissions limit 

of 0.015 mg/dscm. Specifically, we 

considered two main options: (1) 

Propose that all small hard chromium 

electroplating facilities currently in 

operation meet an emissions limit of 

0.015 mg/dscm, and (2) propose that all 

small hard chromium electroplating 

facilities currently in operation meet an 

emissions limit of 0.010 mg/dscm. The 

results of this analysis and the proposed 

decisions are described in section IV 

below. 

We also considered revising the 

definition of new small hard chromium 

electroplating facilities, based on the 

proposal date for this action, and 

requiring those facilities to meet a more 

stringent emissions limit. The results of 

this analysis and the proposed decisions 

are described in section IV below. 

c. Decorative Chromium 

Electroplating. For decorative chromium 

electroplating, we intended to perform 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6633 

1U.S. EPA SAB. Risk and Technology Review 

(RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review 

by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case 

Studies—MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and 

Portland Cement Manufacturing, May 2010. 

analyses similar to that performed for 

hard chromium electroplating. 

However, the data set for decorative 

chromium electroplating was much 

smaller (e.g., 20 data points for 

decorative chromium electroplating vs. 

75 data points for large hard chromium), 

and we did not think the data were 

adequate for considering several 

different emissions reductions options. 

The primary reason for the smaller data 

set is that the most commonly used 

method for controlling emissions from 

decorative chromium electroplating is 

adding WAFS to the electroplating tank 

bath. Since sources that use WAFS and 

comply with the surface tension limits 

are not required to conduct an emission 

test, there are limited test data available. 

However, we did rank the available 

data on existing sources in the 

decorative chromium electroplating 

source category by emissions level to 

determine the typical level of emissions 

performance and range of performance 

among those sources to determine 

options for revising these limits. All the 

facilities for which we have data have 

emissions concentrations less than 

0.007 mg/dscm (i.e., at least 30 percent 

below the applicable emissions limit of 

0.010 mg/dscm). Further discussion of 

this analysis and the proposed decisions 

for existing and new decorative 

chromium electroplating sources are 

presented in section IV below. 

d. Chromium Anodizing. In the case 

of chromium anodizing, we had only a 

single data point (0.0016 mg/dscm), 

which is significantly below the current 

emissions limit of 0.010 mg/dscm. 

However, we concluded that the data on 

decorative chromium electroplating was 

relevant to determining the feasible 

options for chromium anodizing. For 

one, many chromium anodizing sources 

(approximately 50 percent) are 

controlled using only WAFS. It was for 

this reason that the current NESHAP 

specifies the same emissions limits of 

0.010 mg/dscm for both chromium 

anodizing and decorative chromium 

electroplating sources. In addition, 

chromium anodizing plants are 

comparable to decorative chromium 

electroplating plants with respect to the 

relative magnitude of chromium 

emissions. Finally, the feasibility and 

options for controlling emissions from 

chromium anodizing are similar to those 

for decorative chromium. Further 

discussion of this analysis and the 

proposed decisions for existing and new 

chromium anodizing sources are 

presented in section IV below. 

2. Surface Tension Limits 

The NESHAP provides that affected 

sources must either meet an emissions 

limit specified in the NESHAP or must 

maintain the surface tension in 

chromium electroplating or chromium 

anodizing tanks below one of two 

specified surface tension limits, 

depending on the type of instrument 

used to measure surface tension. Despite 

the fact that the emissions limits for the 

three chromium electroplating source 

categories differ, the surface tension 

limits in the current NESHAP are the 

same for all three source categories and 

are the same for existing and new 

sources, as follows: if a stalagmometer is 

used to measure surface tension, the 

surface tension limit is 45 dynes/cm, 

and, if a tensiometer is used, the surface 

tension limit is 35 dynes/cm. The 

available data, which are described in 

detail in the technical document 

‘‘Development of Revised Surface 

Tension Limits for Chromium 

Electroplating and Anodizing Tanks 

Controlled with Wetting Agent Fume 

Suppressants,’’ which is available in the 

docket, indicate that maintaining the 

surface tension below these limits 

ensures that emissions are below 0.01 

mg/dscm, which is the most stringent 

limit currently in the NESHAP. 

As part of the information collection 

described in section II.E of this 

preamble, we obtained test data for 

several decorative and hard chromium 

electroplating sources controlled using 

only WAFS. These data on surface 

tension and emission concentration 

were evaluated to determine the 

relationship between emissions and 

surface tension. We analyzed these data 

to evaluate the feasibility of requiring 

lower surface tension limits and the 

corresponding emissions levels. Further 

details of this analysis and the results, 

and the proposed decisions based on 

this analysis, are presented below in 

section IV.A. 

B. For purposes of this supplemental 

proposal, how did we estimate the risk 

posed by each of the three chromium 

electroplating source categories? 

The EPA conducted a risk assessment 

that provided estimates of the maximum 

individual risk (MIR) posed by HAP 

emissions from sources in the source 

category and the hazard index (HI) for 

chronic exposures to HAP with the 

potential to cause noncancer health 

effects. The assessment also provided 

estimates of the distribution of cancer 

risks within the exposed populations, 

cancer incidence, and an evaluation of 

the potential for adverse environmental 

effects for each source category. The 

docket for this rulemaking contains the 

following document which provides 

more information on the risk assessment 

inputs and models: Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Chromic Acid 

Anodizing, Decorative Chromium 

Electroplating, and Hard Chromium 

Electroplating Source Categories. The 

methods used to assess risks are 

consistent with those peer-reviewed by 

a panel of the EPA’s Science Advisory 

Board (SAB) in 2009 and described in 

their peer review report issued in 

2010 1; they are also consistent with the 

key recommendations contained in that 

report. 

1. Estimating Actual Emissions 

As explained previously, the revised 

data set for the Chromium 

Electroplating NESHAP source 

categories includes significantly 

improved emissions data for many more 

plants than the data set used for the 

October 2010 proposal. However, to 

assess nationwide residual risk, it was 

still necessary to estimate emissions for 

much of the industry. Rather than 

estimate those emissions using the 

model plant approach used for the 

October 2010 proposal, we used a 

Monte Carlo procedure to simulate 

actual emissions for those plants for 

which actual emissions data were not 

available. The simulation model used 

the pool of available data on actual 

emissions concentrations, exhaust flow 

rates, and annual operating hours for 

each process type (hard chromium 

electroplating, decorative chromium 

electroplating, and chromium 

anodizing). Actual emissions data 

(lbs/yr) were fitted to a Weibull 

distribution and emissions for plants for 

which emissions were unknown were 

simulated using the actual data for each 

plant type. Because process-specific 

data were used to simulate emissions for 

each facility, it was necessary to identify 

the process type for each of the plants. 

Although the process type was known 

for many plants, it was unknown for a 

large number of other plants. By scaling 

up the data on known plants, and using 

other available data on the industry, the 

profile of the current chromium 

electroplating industry was estimated in 

terms of the number of each type of 

plant. 

One of the primary goals in 

simulating actual annual emissions was 

to develop a data set of emissions 

estimates that best represents chromium 

electroplating plants operating in the 

U.S. For this reason, a distinction was 

made between chromium electroplating 

plants located in California and plants 

located elsewhere (i.e., the nonVerDate Mar<15>2010 21:44 Feb 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08FEP2.SGM 08FEP2

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6634 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air 

Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General 

Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion 

Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, 

November 9, 2005). 

California plants). Because chromium 

electroplating plants located in 

California are subject to emissions limits 

that are significantly more stringent 

than the limits specified in the 

NESHAP, they typically use multiple 

emissions controls, including HEPA 

filters in many cases, to reduce 

emissions. Thus, emissions for 

California plants are not representative 

of emissions for non-California plants. 

For this reason, the data on California 

plants were not included in the data set 

used to simulate emissions for plants 

located in other States. However, the 

data on actual emissions from plants 

located in California were used to 

estimate emissions for other plants in 

California. Thus, we did not exclude the 

California data from the overall analysis; 

we treated the data from plants in 

California differently. (Additional 

details on the emissions data for the 

California plants are provided below.) 

Based on the total numbers of plants 

nationwide, plant types were randomly 

assigned to each of the unknown plants, 

while ensuring that the total numbers of 

each type of plants nationwide were 

preserved. After assigning plant types, 

emissions for each plant was simulated 

5,000 times using only the data for that 

specific type of plant (e.g., only data for 

small hard chromium electroplating 

plants were used to simulate emissions 

for a small hard chromium 

electroplating plant). Once all 5,000 

simulations were completed, the mean 

of the simulated values for each plant 

was determined and that value was used 

to populate the risk modeling file on 

actual emissions. 

Taking into account all of the new 

emissions data collected following the 

public comment period for the October 

2010 proposal, plus the good quality 

emissions data collected previously, the 

data set included emissions estimates 

for a total of 301 plants. Of these, 

approximately 128 plants were located 

in California, and 173 plants were 

located in other States. A review of the 

data indicated that emissions for the 

California plants were significantly 

lower than emissions for the nonCalifornia plants. For example, 

emissions from the large hard chromium 

electroplating plants in California 

averaged 0.027 lbs/yr, whereas the 

average for the non-California large hard 

chromium plants was 2.62 lbs/yr. For 

small hard chromium electroplating, the 

California plants averaged 0.0095 lbs/yr 

and the non-California plants averaged 

0.56 lbs/yr. For decorative chromium 

electroplating, the average emissions 

were 0.00042 lbs/yr (California) and 

0.55 lbs/yr (non-California). For 

chromium anodizing, the average 

emissions were 0.00035 lbs/yr 

(California) and 0.46 lbs/yr (nonCalifornia). These results clearly 

indicated that the data for plants in 

California were not representative of 

plants located outside of California. For 

this reason, all subsequent analyses 

related to estimating emissions for 

plants located outside of California were 

performed using only data for nonCalifornia plants. 

For the California plants we used the 

emissions estimates as reported. For all 

the plants outside of California, we used 

actual emissions estimates if they were 

available. For the other plants we used 

the simulation model described above to 

estimate emissions. 

Overall, we believe that the resulting 

emissions simulated by the model are 

much more representative of actual 

emissions on average and also are more 

representative of the variability of 

emissions from plant to plant. 

Additional details on the simulation 

approach can be found in the emissions 

technical document ‘‘Simulation of 

Actual and Allowable Emissions for 

Chromium Electroplating Facilities,’’ 

which is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

2. Estimating MACT-Allowable 

Emissions 

To estimate allowable annual 

emissions (e.g., lbs/yr) for those plants 

for which actual emissions 

concentration data were available, we 

calculated the allowable annual 

emissions using the MACT emissions 

limit. In other words, we scaled up 

actual annual emissions for those plants 

using the ratio of the emissions 

concentration (measured during the 

performance test) to the MACT limit. 

For example, if the measured 

concentration for a large hard chromium 

plant was 0.0075 mg/dscm, which is 

one-half of the 0.015 mg/dscm 

emissions limit, we scaled up annual 

emissions by a factor or 2. For those 

plants for which we did not have actual 

emissions data, we used the same 

emissions simulation approach used to 

estimate actual emissions, as described 

previously. That is, data for California 

plants were excluded from the analysis; 

process types were assigned to each 

plant for which the process was 

unknown, while ensuring that the total 

number of each type of plant matched 

the estimated numbers of plants 

nationwide; and a Monte Carlo 

simulation model was developed using 

the pool of available data on emissions 

concentrations, exhaust flow rates, and 

annual operating hours for each process 

type to simulate allowable emissions for 

each plant. However, instead of using 

the actual emissions concentration data 

in the simulation model, we used the 

corresponding MACT emissions limit. 

Thus, we calculated the allowable 

emissions by using the pool of available 

data on exhaust flow rates and annual 

operating hours for each process type 

and assumed each source had emissions 

concentrations equal to the MACT 

emissions limit (i.e., we assumed they 

were emitting at the maximum level 

allowed by the MACT standard). For 

example, to estimate the allowable 

emissions for a large hard chromium 

electroplating plant, data on large hard 

chromium plant exhaust flow rates and 

annual operating hours were used, along 

with an emissions concentration of 

0.015 mg/dscm, which is the emissions 

limit specified in the NESHAP for large 

hard chromium electroplating plants. As 

was used for calculating actual 

emissions estimates, 5,000 simulations 

were performed for each plant, and the 

average of simulated values was used to 

represent allowable emissions for the 

plant. Additional details on the 

simulation approach can be found in the 

emissions technical document 

‘‘Simulation of Actual and Allowable 

Emissions for Chromium Electroplating 

Facilities,’’ which is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

3. Conducting Dispersion Modeling, 

Determining Inhalation Exposures, and 

Estimating Individual and Population 

Inhalation Risks 

Both long-term and short-term 

inhalation exposure concentrations and 

health risks from the three chromium 

electroplating source categories were 

estimated using the Human Exposure 

Model (HEM–3). The HEM–3 performs 

three of the primary risk assessment 

activities listed above: (1) Conducting 

dispersion modeling to estimate the 

concentrations of HAP in ambient air, 

(2) estimating long-term and short-term 

inhalation exposures to individuals 

residing within 50 kilometers (km) of 

the modeled sources, and (3) estimating 

individual and population-level 

inhalation risks using the exposure 

estimates and quantitative doseresponse information. 

The air dispersion model used by the 

HEM–3 model (AERMOD) is one of the 

EPA’s preferred models for assessing 

pollutant concentrations from industrial 

facilities.2 To perform the dispersion 

modeling and to develop the 

preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6635 

3A census block is the smallest geographic area 

for which census statistics are tabulated. 

4These classifications also coincide with the 

terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and 

possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the 

terms advocated in the EPA’s previous Guidelines 

for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 

(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the 

risks of these individual compounds to obtain the 

cumulative cancer risks is an approach that was 

recommended by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board 

(SAB) in their 2002 peer review of EPA’s National 

Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) entitled, NATA— 

Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics 

Assessment 1996 Data—an SAB Advisory, available 

at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 

214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ 

ecadv02001.pdf. 

draws on three data libraries. The first 

is a library of meteorological data, 

which is used for dispersion 

calculations. This library includes 1 

year of hourly surface and upper air 

observations for approximately 200 

meteorological stations, selected to 

provide coverage of the United States 

and Puerto Rico. A second library, of 

United States Census Bureau census 

block 3 internal point locations and 

populations, provides the basis of 

human exposure calculations (Census, 

2010). In addition, for each census 

block, the census library includes the 

elevation and controlling hill height, 

which are also used in dispersion 

calculations. A third library of pollutant 

unit risk factors and other health 

benchmarks is used to estimate health 

risks. These risk factors and health 

benchmarks are the latest values 

recommended by the EPA for HAP and 

other toxic air pollutants. These values 

are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/toxsource/summary.html and are 

discussed in more detail later in this 

section. 

In developing the risk assessment for 

chronic exposures, we used the 

estimated annual average ambient air 

concentrations of chromium emitted by 

each source. The air concentrations at 

each nearby census block centroid were 

used as a surrogate for the chronic 

inhalation exposure concentration for 

all the people who reside in that census 

block. We calculated the MIR for each 

facility as the cancer risk associated 

with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per 

day, 7 days per week, and 52 weeks per 

year for a 70-year period) exposure to 

the maximum concentration at the 

centroid of inhabited census blocks. 

Individual cancer risks were calculated 

by multiplying the estimated lifetime 

exposure to the ambient concentration 

of chromium (in micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3)) by its unit risk estimate 

(URE), which is an upper bound 

estimate of an individual’s probability 

of contracting cancer over a lifetime of 

exposure to a concentration of 1 

microgram of the pollutant per cubic 

meter of air. For residual risk 

assessments, we generally use URE 

values from the EPA’s Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS). For 

carcinogenic pollutants without the EPA 

IRIS values, we look to other reputable 

sources of cancer dose-response values, 

often using California EPA (CalEPA) 

URE values, where available. In cases 

where new, scientifically credible dose 

response values have been developed in 

a manner consistent with the EPA 

guidelines and have undergone a peer 

review process similar to that used by 

the EPA, we may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in 

addition to, other values, if appropriate. 

Incremental individual lifetime 

cancer risks were estimated as the sum 

of the risks for each of the carcinogenic 

HAP (including those classified as 

carcinogenic to humans, likely to be 

carcinogenic to humans, and suggestive 

evidence of carcinogenic potential 4) 

emitted by the modeled source. Cancer 

incidence and the distribution of 

individual cancer risks for the 

population within 50 km of the sources 

were also estimated for the source 

category as part of this assessment by 

summing individual risks. A distance of 

50 km is consistent with both the 

analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene 

NESHAP (54 FR 38044) and the 

limitations of Gaussian dispersion 

models, including AERMOD. 

To assess the risk of non-cancer 

health effects from chronic exposures, 

we summed the HQ for each of the HAP 

that affects a common target organ 

system to obtain the HI for that target 

organ system (or target organ-specific 

HI, TOSHI). The HQ is the estimated 

exposure divided by the chronic 

reference value, which is either the EPA 

reference concentration (RfC), defined 

as ‘‘an estimate (with uncertainty 

spanning perhaps an order of 

magnitude) of a continuous inhalation 

exposure to the human population 

(including sensitive subgroups) that is 

likely to be without an appreciable risk 

of deleterious effects during a lifetime,’’ 

or, in cases where an RfC from the 

EPA’s IRIS database is not available, the 

EPA will utilize the following 

prioritized sources for our chronic doseresponse values: (1) The Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

Minimum Risk Level, which is defined 

as ‘‘an estimate of daily human 

exposure to a substance that is likely to 

be without an appreciable risk of 

adverse effects (other than cancer) over 

a specified duration of exposure’’; (2) 

the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure 

Level (REL), which is defined as ‘‘the 

concentration level at or below which 

no adverse health effects are anticipated 

for a specified exposure duration’’; and 

(3), as noted above, in cases where 

scientifically credible dose-response 

values have been developed in a manner 

consistent with the EPA guidelines and 

have undergone a peer review process 

similar to that used by the EPA, we may 

use those dose-response values in place 

of or in concert with other values. 

4. Conducting Multipathway Exposure 

and Risk Screening 

As explained in the October 2010 

proposal, chromium electroplating 

facilities do not emit any of the 14 PB– 

HAP compounds or compound classes 

identified for the multipathway 

screening in the EPA’s Air Toxics Risk 

Assessment Library (available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/ 

risk_atra_vol1.html). Because none of 

these PB–HAP are emitted by sources in 

the chromium electroplating source 

categories, we concluded at the time of 

the proposal that there is low potential 

for significant non-inhalation human or 

environmental risks for these source 

categories. The data we received since 

proposal continues to indicate that 

chromium electroplating sources do not 

emit any of those 14 PB–HAP 

compounds or compound classes. 

5. Conducting Other Analyses: FacilityWide Risk Assessments and 

Demographic Analyses 

a. Facility-Wide Risk 

To put the source category risks in 

context, we examined the risks from the 

entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the facility 

includes all HAP-emitting operations 

within a contiguous area and under 

common control. In other words, for 

each facility that includes one or more 

sources from a source category under 

review, we examined the HAP 

emissions not only from that source 

category, but also emissions of HAP 

from all other emission sources at the 

facility. The emissions data for 

generating these ‘‘facility-wide’’ risks 

were obtained from the 2005 NEI. We 

analyzed risks due to the inhalation of 

HAP that are emitted ‘‘facility-wide’’ for 

the populations residing within 50 km 

of each facility, consistent with the 

methods used for the source category 

analysis described above. For these 

facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled 

source category risks were compared to 

the facility-wide risks to determine the 

portion of facility-wide risks that could 

be attributed to each of the three 

chromium electroplating source 

categories. We specifically examined the 

facility that was associated with the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6636 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

highest estimate of risk and determined 

the percentage of that risk attributable to 

the source category of interest. The risk 

documentation available through the 

docket for this action provides all 

facility-wide risks and the percentage of 

source category contribution for the 

three chromium electroplating source 

categories. 

The methodology and results of the 

facility-wide analyses for each source 

category are included in the residual 

risk documentation as referenced in 

section IV of this preamble, which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

b. Demographic Analysis 

To examine the potential for any 

environmental justice (EJ) issues that 

might be associated with these source 

categories, we performed demographic 

analyses of the at-risk populations for 

two of the three chromium 

electroplating categories. We performed 

these analyses for only these two source 

categories because the chromium 

anodizing source category is not 

associated with significant populations 

with estimated cancer risks above 1 in 

a million. For the hard and decorative 

chromium electroplating source 

categories, we evaluated the percentages 

of different social, demographic and 

economic groups within the populations 

living near the facilities who were 

estimated to be subjected to cancer risks 

greater than 1 in a million due to HAP 

emissions from chromium 

electroplating. We compared the 

percentages of these demographic 

groups to the total percentages of those 

demographic groups nationwide. The 

methodology and results of the 

demographic analyses are included in 

the technical reports: ‘‘Risk and 

Technology Review—Analysis of SocioEconomic Factors for Populations 

Living Near Hard Chromium 

Electroplating Facilities’’; and ‘‘Risk and 

Technology Review—Analysis of SocioEconomic Factors for Populations 

Living Near Decorative Chromium 

Electroplating Facilities.’’ These reports 

are available in the docket for this 

action. 

6. Considering Uncertainties in Risk 

Assessment 

Uncertainty and the potential for bias 

are inherent in all risk assessments, 

including those performed for the 

source category addressed in this 

supplemental proposal. Although 

uncertainty exists, we believe that our 

approach, which used conservative 

tools and assumptions, ensures that our 

decisions are health-protective. A brief 

discussion of the uncertainties in the 

emissions data set, dispersion modeling, 

inhalation exposure estimates and doseresponse relationships follows below. A 

more thorough discussion of these 

uncertainties is included in the risk 

assessment documentation available in 

the docket for this action. 

a. Uncertainties in the Emissions Data 

Set 

Although the development of the RTR 

data sets involved quality assurance/ 

quality control processes, the accuracy 

of emissions values will vary depending 

on the source of the data, the degree to 

which data are incomplete or missing, 

the degree to which assumptions made 

to complete the data sets are inaccurate, 

errors in estimating emissions values, 

and other factors. 

The emission estimates considered in 

this analysis generally are annual totals 

for certain years that do not reflect 

short-term fluctuations during the 

course of a year or variations from year 

to year. Additionally, although we 

believe that we have good data for 

hundreds of facilities in these source 

categories in our RTR data set, our data 

set does not include data for many other 

existing facilities. 

To simulate emissions estimates for 

plants for which we did not have actual 

emissions estimates, separate data sets 

were compiled for each process type: 

large hard chromium electroplating, 

small hard chromium electroplating, 

decorative chromium electroplating, 

and chromium anodizing. The data sets 

included combinations of actual data on 

emissions concentrations, exhaust flow 

rates, annual operating hours, and 

hourly emission rates. In addition, 

assumptions were used to fill in some 

of the data gaps. For example, if, for a 

specific facility, data on all parameters 

except exhaust flow rate were known, 

the exhaust flow rate was estimated 

using average flow rate data for other 

plants of similar process (e.g., large hard 

chromium electroplating). A similar 

procedure was used to estimate annual 

operating hours if all data except for 

annual operating hours were known. 

The relative sizes of the data sets used 

to simulate emissions also introduce 

various levels of uncertainty in the 

simulations: the smaller the data set, the 

greater the variability in the analysis, 

and the greater the uncertainty in the 

emissions estimates. For example, the 

data set for chromium anodizing was 

the smallest and, therefore, is expected 

to have the highest level of uncertainty; 

the data set for large hard chromium 

electroplating was the largest and is 

expected to have the lowest degree of 

uncertainty in the emissions 

simulations. 

Moreover, even after collecting the 

additional information, we still had 

many sources in our data set for which 

we did not know the type of facility 

(e.g., hard chromium electroplating, 

decorative chromium electroplating, or 

chromium anodizing). To assign source 

types to these unknown sources for the 

model input file, we first determined 

the percent of each of the type of 

sources among the sources for which we 

have data, then we assumed that the 

remaining unknown sources (those for 

which we did not know the source type) 

would comprise the same percentages 

for each type. Finally, we randomly 

assigned a source type to each unknown 

plant based on these percentages. For 

further details on these data, the 

simulation approach, and the associated 

uncertainties, see the technical 

document ‘‘Simulation of Actual and 

Allowable Emissions for Chromium 

Electroplating Facilities,’’ which is 

available in the docket. 

In terms of speciation, it was assumed 

that emissions from all chromium 

electroplating sources consisted of 98 

percent hexavalent chromium and 2 

percent trivalent chromium. The actual 

speciation of chromium in exhaust 

streams may vary slightly from source to 

source. However, historical data 

indicate that emissions from chromium 

electroplating sources are almost 

entirely comprised of hexavalent 

chromium, and the 98%/2% assumed 

speciation was believed to be 

representative of sources on average. 

b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling 

While the analysis employed the 

EPA’s recommended regulatory 

dispersion model, AERMOD, we 

recognize that there is uncertainty in 

ambient concentration estimates 

associated with any model, including 

AERMOD. In circumstances where we 

had to choose between various model 

options, where possible, model options 

(e.g., rural/urban, plume depletion, 

chemistry) were selected to provide an 

overestimate of ambient air 

concentrations of the HAP rather than 

underestimates. However, because of 

practicality and data limitation reasons, 

some factors (e.g., meteorology, building 

downwash) have the potential in some 

situations to overestimate or 

underestimate ambient impacts. For 

example, meteorological data were 

taken from a single year (1991) and 

facility locations can be a significant 

distance from the site where these data 

were taken. 

c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure 

The effects of human mobility on 

exposures were not included in the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6637 

5Short-term mobility is movement from one 

micro-environment to another over the course of 

hours or days. Long-term mobility is movement 

from one residence to another over the course of a 

lifetime. 

6U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment 

for 1996. (EPA 453/R–01–003; January 2001; page 

85.) 

7 IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/ 

help_gloss.htm). 

8An exception to this is the URE for benzene, 

which is considered to cover a range of values, each 

end of which is considered to be equally plausible, 

and which is based on maximum likelihood 

estimates. 

9According to the NRC report, Science and 

Judgment in Risk Assessment (NRC, 1994) 

‘‘[Default] options are generic approaches, based on 

general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, 

that are applied to various elements of the risk 

assessment process when the correct scientific 

model is unknown or uncertain.’’ The 1983 NRC 

report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: 

Managing the Process, defined default option as 

‘‘the option chosen on the basis of risk assessment 

policy that appears to be the best choice in the 

Continued 

assessment. Specifically, short-term 

mobility and long-term mobility 

between census blocks in the modeling 

domain were not considered.5 The 

assumption of not considering short or 

long-term population mobility does not 

bias the estimate of the theoretical MIR, 

nor does it affect the estimate of cancer 

incidence because the total population 

number remains the same. It does, 

however, affect the shape of the 

distribution of individual risks across 

the affected population, shifting it 

toward higher estimated individual 

risks at the upper end and reducing the 

number of people estimated to be at 

lower risks, thereby increasing the 

estimated number of people at specific 

high risk levels (e.g., one in 10,000 or 

one in one million). 

In addition, the assessment predicted 

the chronic exposures at the centroid of 

each populated census block as 

surrogates for the exposure 

concentrations for all people living in 

that block. Using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

tends to over-predict exposures for 

people in the census block who live 

farther from the facility and underpredict exposures for people in the 

census block who live closer to the 

facility. Thus, using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

may lead to a potential understatement 

or overstatement of the true maximum 

impact, but is an unbiased estimate of 

average risk and incidence. 

The assessment evaluates the cancer 

inhalation risks associated with 

pollutant exposures over a 70-year 

period, which is the assumed lifetime of 

an individual. In reality, both the length 

of time that modeled emissions sources 

at facilities actually operate (i.e., more 

or less than 70 years), and the domestic 

growth or decline of the modeled 

industry (i.e., the increase or decrease in 

the number or size of United States 

facilities), will influence the future risks 

posed by a given source or source 

category. Depending on the 

characteristics of the industry, these 

factors will, in most cases, result in an 

overestimate both in individual risk 

levels and in the total estimated number 

of cancer cases. However, in rare cases, 

where a facility maintains or increases 

its emissions levels beyond 70 years, 

residents live beyond 70 years at the 

same location, and the residents spend 

most of their days at that location, then 

the risks could potentially be 

underestimated. Annual cancer 

incidence estimates from exposures to 

emissions from these sources would not 

be affected by uncertainty in the length 

of time emissions sources operate. 

The exposure estimates used in these 

analyses assume chronic exposures to 

ambient levels of pollutants. Because 

most people spend the majority of their 

time indoors, actual exposures may not 

be as high, depending on the 

characteristics of the pollutants 

modeled. For many of the HAP, indoor 

levels are roughly equivalent to ambient 

levels, but for very reactive pollutants or 

larger particles, these levels are 

typically lower. This factor has the 

potential to result in an overstatement of 

25 to 30 percent of exposures.6

In addition to the uncertainties 

highlighted above, there are several 

factors specific to the acute exposure 

assessment that should be highlighted. 

The accuracy of an acute inhalation 

exposure assessment depends on the 

simultaneous occurrence of 

independent factors that may vary 

greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, 

meteorology, and human activity 

patterns. In this assessment, we assume 

that individuals remain for 1 hour at the 

point of maximum ambient 

concentration as determined by the cooccurrence of peak emissions and worstcase meteorological conditions. These 

assumptions would tend to be worstcase actual exposures as it is unlikely 

that a person would be located at the 

point of maximum exposure during the 

time of worst-case impact. 

d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response 

Relationships 

There are uncertainties inherent in 

the development of the dose-response 

values used in our risk assessments for 

cancer effects from chronic exposures 

and non-cancer effects from both 

chronic and acute exposures. Some 

uncertainties may be considered 

quantitatively, and others generally are 

expressed in qualitative terms. We note 

as a preface to this discussion a point on 

dose-response uncertainty that is 

brought out in the EPA’s 2005 Cancer 

Guidelines; namely, that ‘‘the primary 

goal of EPA actions is protection of 

human health; accordingly, as an 

Agency policy, risk assessment 

procedures, including default options 

that are used in the absence of scientific 

data to the contrary, should be health 

protective’’ (EPA 2005 Cancer 

Guidelines, pages 1–7). This is the 

approach followed here, as summarized 

in the next several paragraphs. A 

complete detailed discussion of 

uncertainties and variability in doseresponse relationships is given in the 

residual risk documentation which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

Cancer URE values used in our risk 

assessments are those that have been 

developed to generally provide an upper 

bound estimate of risk. That is, they 

represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the 

true value of a quantity’’ (although this 

is usually not a true statistical 

confidence limit).7 In some 

circumstances, the true risk could be as 

low as zero; however, in other 

circumstances the risk could be greater.8

When developing an upper bound 

estimate of risk and to provide risk 

values that do not underestimate risk, 

health-protective default approaches are 

generally used. To err on the side of 

ensuring adequate health protection, the 

EPA typically uses the upper bound 

estimates rather than lower bound or 

central tendency estimates in our risk 

assessments, an approach that may have 

limitations for other uses (e.g., prioritysetting or expected benefits analysis). 

Chronic non-cancer reference 

concentration (RfC) and reference dose 

(RfD) values represent chronic exposure 

levels that are intended to be healthprotective levels. Specifically, these 

values provide an estimate (with 

uncertainty spanning perhaps an order 

of magnitude) of a continuous 

inhalation exposure (RfC) or a daily oral 

exposure (RfD) to the human population 

(including sensitive subgroups) that is 

likely to be without an appreciable risk 

of deleterious effects during a lifetime. 

To derive values that are intended to be 

‘‘without appreciable risk,’’ the 

methodology relies upon an uncertainty 

factor (UF) approach, (U.S. EPA, 1993, 

1994) which considers uncertainty, 

variability and gaps in the available 

data. The UF are applied to derive 

reference values that are intended to 

protect against appreciable risk of 

deleterious effects. The UF are 

commonly default values,9 e.g., factors of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6638 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

absence of data to the contrary’’ (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). 

Therefore, default options are not rules that bind 

the Agency; rather, the Agency may depart from 

them in evaluating the risks posed by a specific 

substance when it believes this to be appropriate. 

In keeping with EPA’s goal of protecting public 

health and the environment, default assumptions 

are used to ensure that risk to chemicals is not 

underestimated (although defaults are not intended 

to overtly overestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An 

Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles 

and Practices, EPA/100/B–04/001 available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf. 

10 or 3, used in the absence of 

compound-specific data; where data are 

available, UF may also be developed 

using compound-specific information. 

When data are limited, more 

assumptions are needed and more UF 

are used. Thus, there may be a greater 

tendency to overestimate risk in the 

sense that further study might support 

development of reference values that are 

higher (i.e., less potent) because fewer 

default assumptions are needed. 

However, for some pollutants, it is 

possible that risks may be 

underestimated. 

While collectively termed ‘‘UF,’’ these 

factors account for a number of different 

quantitative considerations when using 

observed animal (usually rodent) or 

human toxicity data in the development 

of the RfC. The UF are intended to 

account for: (1) Variation in 

susceptibility among the members of the 

human population (i.e., inter-individual 

variability); (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from experimental animal 

data to humans (i.e., interspecies 

differences); (3) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from data obtained in a 

study with less-than-lifetime exposure 

(i.e., extrapolating from sub-chronic to 

chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in 

extrapolating the observed data to 

obtain an estimate of the exposure 

associated with no adverse effects; and 

(5) uncertainty when the database is 

incomplete or there are problems with 

the applicability of available studies. 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions for the Three Chromium 

Electroplating Source Categories 

A. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

1. Emissions Limits for Large Hard 

Chromium Electroplating 

a. Emissions Limits for Existing Large 

Hard Chromium Sources. As mentioned 

above, the available data from 75 tanks 

located at 38 facilities outside of 

California indicate that approximately 

88 percent of existing large hard 

chromium electroplating sources 

located outside of California have 

emissions levels that are less than 75 

percent of the current emissions limit 

(i.e., below 0.011 mg/dscm); 72 percent 

of these sources emit at less than 50 

percent of the emissions limit (i.e., 

below 0.0075 mg/dscm); and about 60 

percent of these sources achieve 

emissions below 0.006 mg/dscm. There 

are an additional 17 facilities located in 

California, which on average have 

considerably lower emissions compared 

to plants in other States. These findings 

demonstrate that the add-on emission 

control technologies and/or the fume 

suppressants used by the majority of 

facilities in this source category are very 

effective in reducing chromium 

emissions and that most facilities have 

emissions well below the current limit. 

We considered three options to lower 

the emissions limit. Table 2 summarizes 

the emissions, costs, and cost 

effectiveness for these options, which 

are described further in the following 

paragraphs. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR POTENTIAL REVISED EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR LARGE HARD CHROMIUM

ELECTROPLATING FACILITIES

Option 

Number of 

plants 

affected 

Emissions 

reductions, 

lbs/yr 

Capital costs, 

$ 

Annualized 

costs, $/yr 

Cost 

effectiveness, 

$/lb 

Reduce emissions limit to 0.011 mg/dscm ...................... 41 121 $1,821,000 $2,196,000 $18,100 

Reduce emissions limit to 0.0075 mg/dscm .................... 76 169 2,847,000 4,182,000 24,700 

Reduce emissions limit to 0.006 mg/dscm ...................... 97 180 3,414,000 5,368,000 29,900 

The first option considered was to 

propose that large hard chromium 

electroplating plants meet an emissions 

limit of 0.011 mg/dscm, which is 

equivalent to a 25 percent reduction of 

the current emission limit. The second 

option evaluated was a limit of 0.006 

mg/dscm since this is the level that 

would be equivalent to the 

concentration that can be achieved 

(based on the 99 percent upper 

tolerance limit) when WAFS are used to 

control emissions and the surface 

tension in the affected chromium 

electroplating tank is maintained at the 

level of the proposed revised surface 

tension limits (described in section 

IV.A.5). Finally, as a third option, we 

selected an emissions limit of 0.0075 

mg/dscm for large hard chromium 

electroplating plants to provide an 

intermediate option that is more 

stringent than the first option of 0.011 

mg/dscm, but less stringent than the 

second option of 0.006 mg/dscm. 

As noted above, we considered the 

option of lowering the current emissions 

limit by 25 percent, which would result 

in a limit of 0.011 mg/dscm. Under this 

option, we estimate that 26 plants (11 

percent of the total plants nationwide) 

would need to reduce emissions to 

comply with this option because they 

have emissions above 0.011 mg/dscm. 

We also assume that an additional 15 

plants (6 percent) that have emissions 

close to this level (i.e., have emissions 

concentrations greater than 0.009 mg/ 

dscm) would likely need to make 

adjustments and reduce emissions to 

ensure continuous compliance with a 

limit of 0.011 mg/dscm. Therefore, 

overall we estimate that 41 of the 

existing large hard chromium facilities 

(about 18 percent of the total) would 

reduce emissions in order to ensure 

compliance with a new emissions limit 

of 0.011 mg/dscm. We assume that most 

of these 41 facilities would achieve 

these extra reductions with the addition 

of fume suppressants. The available 

data, which are described in the 

technical document ‘‘Development of 

Revised Surface Tension Limits for 

Chromium Electroplating and 

Anodizing Tanks Controlled with 

Wetting Agent Fume Suppressants,’’ 

indicate that about 15 percent of sources 

in the large hard chromium 

electroplating industry outside of 

California use fume suppressants to 

supplement the level of control 

achieved by an add-on control device; 

for facilities located in California the 

percentage is even higher. However, we 

also assume that some facilities would 

need to install new add-on control 

devices or retrofit their existing controls 

to meet the proposed limit. The only 

costs for the other 192 facilities (82 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6639 

percent of the total) would be testing 

and/or monitoring costs. 

Based on this analysis, we estimate 

that the total estimated capital costs for 

all large hard chromium electroplating 

sources to comply with this option (i.e., 

a limit of 0.011 mg/dscm) and conduct 

the necessary testing and monitoring 

would be $1.8 million and the average 

capital costs per facility across all 

facilities would be $8,300. The 

estimated range of capital costs per 

plant would be from $0 to $180,000. 

The total annualized costs would be an 

estimated $2.2 million, which includes 

the costs for controls (WAFS and addon controls) plus testing. The average 

annual cost per facility across all 

facilities would be about $10,000. The 

annualized costs per facility range from 

$0 to $55,000. We estimate that these 

requirements would reduce emissions of 

chromium (mainly hexavalent 

chromium) by 121 pounds per year (lbs/ 

yr), and that the cost-effectiveness 

would be $18,100 per pound. The cost 

estimates for the WAFS accounts for the 

potential for slightly higher costs for 

non-PFOS WAFS compared to PFOSbased WAFS and includes a 

conservative assumption that the costs 

for non-PFOS WAFS will be 15 percent 

higher than the costs for PFOS-based 

WAFS. The use of non-PFOS WAFS to 

limit surface tension is described further 

in section IV.A.5 below. More 

information about the estimates of costs 

and reductions and how they were 

derived are provided in the technical 

support document ‘‘Procedures for 

Determining Control Costs and Cost 

Effectiveness for Chromium 

Electroplating Supplemental Proposal’’, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. 

Another option considered was to 

lower the current emissions limit by 50 

percent, which would result in a limit 

of 0.0075 mg/dscm. Under this option, 

and using a similar assumption (as that 

used above) that facilities with 

emissions close to this level (i.e., with 

emissions greater than 0.006) would 

make adjustments and reduce emissions 

to ensure compliance with the revised 

limit, we estimate that 76 of the existing 

large hard chromium facilities (about 33 

percent of the total) would reduce 

emissions in order to ensure compliance 

with an emissions limit of 0.0075 mg/ 

dscm. This would include the 

approximately 28 percent of sources not 

currently meeting this limit, as well as 

sources (approximately 5 percent) that 

are currently measuring close to this 

limit and that would likely need to 

make adjustments to ensure continuous 

compliance with a limit of 0.0075 mg/ 

dscm. We assume that most of these 76 

facilities would achieve these extra 

reductions with the addition of fume 

suppressants. However, we also assume 

that some facilities would need to 

install new add-on control devices or 

retrofit their existing controls to meet 

the limit. 

Based on this analysis, we estimate 

that the total estimated capital costs for 

all large hard chromium electroplating 

sources to comply with this second 

option (i.e., a limit of 0.0075 mg/dscm) 

and conduct the necessary testing and 

monitoring would be about $2.8 million, 

and the average capital costs per facility 

across all facilities would be about 

$12,000. The total annualized costs are 

estimated to be about $4.2 million, and 

the estimated average annual cost per 

facility across all facilities would be 

about $19,000. We estimate that these 

requirements would reduce emissions 

by 169 lbs/yr, and that the costeffectiveness would be about $24,700 

per pound. Moreover, the incremental 

cost-effectiveness (i.e., the increased 

costs per pound that result from 

increasing the level of stringency from 

option 1 to option 2) is estimated to be 

about $41,800 per pound. This option 

would also result in more facilities 

needing to install or retrofit add-on 

controls and would have more 

significant impacts on small businesses 

compared to the first option discussed 

above. 

We also considered the option of 

lowering the limit by 60 percent, which 

would result in a limit of 0.006 mg/ 

dscm. The option of reducing the 

emissions limit to 0.006 mg/dscm was 

evaluated because that concentration is 

equivalent to the concentration that can 

be achieved when WAFS are used to 

control emissions and the surface 

tension in the affected chromium 

electroplating tank is maintained at 

levels consistent with the surface 

tension limits that are being proposed in 

this action (as described in section 

IV.A.5). However, the number of 

facilities affected, the cost-effectiveness, 

and incremental cost-effectiveness were 

significantly higher than the estimated 

costs and impacts for the two options 

presented above (as shown in Table 2), 

and would result in greater economic 

impacts to small businesses. 

We made the decision to consider 

more stringent emissions limits than the 

limit in the current NESHAP primarily 

because the revised data set indicated 

that most facilities were operating well 

below the current emissions limit. This 

indicated that more stringent emissions 

limits could be implemented without 

significant economic burden to the 

industry. 

After considering the three options 

described above for reducing the 

emissions limit and after weighing the 

costs and emissions reductions 

associated with each option, we are 

proposing to reduce the emissions limit 

for affected tanks located at existing 

large hard chromium electroplating 

facilities to 0.011 mg/dscm. We 

conclude this emissions limit would 

achieve significant reductions in 

emissions at a reasonable cost. This 

option results in reductions from about 

18 percent of the facilities. We project 

that these facilities would generally be 

the higher emitting facilities since they 

would be the facilities with emissions 

concentrations at the upper end (above 

0.009 mg/dscm) compared to other 

facilities; therefore, this lower limit will 

achieve significant reductions. We did 

not choose the other options for a 

number of reasons, including the 

following: those options would pose 

greater economic burden, would be less 

cost effective, would have significantly 

higher incremental cost-effectiveness, 

would have higher total annualized 

costs and higher average costs per 

facility, would impact substantially 

more facilities, and would result in 

greater impacts to a greater number of 

small businesses. 

Nevertheless, as an alternative to 

meeting the proposed emissions limits, 

we are proposing to allow existing large 

hard chromium electroplating facilities 

to meet the surface tension limits that 

are also being proposed in this action. 

The proposed surface tension limits 

would be 40 dynes/cm, if measured 

using a stalagmometer, and 33 dynes/ 

cm, if measured using a tensiometer. 

Section IV.A.5 of this preamble 

discusses the analyses performed and 

the basis for these proposed surface 

tension limits. As described in section 

IV.A.5 of this preamble, we conclude 

that maintaining surface tension at this 

level would reflect a level of emissions 

that is lower than the emissions limit (of 

0.011 mg/dscm) proposed above. 

b. Compliance Testing and 

Monitoring. To demonstrate compliance, 

we are proposing that each facility 

would need to provide a new or 

previous performance stack emissions 

test that is representative of current 

operations and current controls and is 

conducted at the exit of the control 

device to show they are in compliance 

with the emissions limit. Or, as an 

alternative, facilities could demonstrate 

compliance with the MACT standard by 

monitoring surface tension and 

demonstrate that they maintain the 

surface tension below the proposed 

limits of 40 dynes/cm, if measured with 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6640 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

a stalagmometer, and 33 dynes/cm, if 

measured with a tensiometer. 

c. Estimated Costs and Impacts for 

Existing Large Hard Chromium 

Facilities for the Proposed Option. We 

estimate that 41 of the existing large 

hard chromium facilities (about 18 

percent of the total) would reduce 

emissions in order to ensure compliance 

with a new emissions limit of 0.011 mg/ 

dscm. This would include the 

approximately 11 percent not currently 

meeting this limit, as well as sources 

(approximately 6 percent) that are 

currently measuring close to this limit 

and that would likely need to make 

adjustments to ensure continuous 

compliance with the proposed 0.011 

mg/dscm level. We assume that most of 

these 41 facilities would achieve these 

extra reductions with the addition of 

fume suppressants. However, we also 

assume that some facilities would need 

to install new add-on control devices or 

retrofit their existing controls to meet 

the limit. We estimate that 27 plants 

would be required only to conduct 

performance tests; and the remaining 

plants would not be required to test or 

add additional controls. 

Based on this analysis, we estimate 

that the total estimated capital costs for 

all large hard chromium electroplating 

sources to comply with the revised 

limits and conduct the necessary testing 

and monitoring is estimated to be $1.8 

million and the average capital costs per 

facility across all facilities are $8,300. 

The total annualized costs are estimated 

to be $2.2 million, and the average 

annual cost per facility across all 

facilities is estimated to $10,000. The 

range for annualized costs per facility 

range from $0 to $57,000. These costs 

include the costs for controls (WAFS 

and add-on controls) plus testing. We 

estimate these requirements will reduce 

chromium emissions (mainly 

hexavalent chromium) by 121 pounds 

per year, and that the cost-effectiveness 

would be $18,100 per pound. We 

conclude that these costs (e.g., total 

capital and annualized costs, and the 

costs per plant) and the cost 

effectiveness are reasonable, particularly 

since hexavalent chromium is a known 

human carcinogen. 

d. Emissions Limits for New Large 

Hard Chromium Sources. We also 

considered options for a more stringent 

emissions limit for new sources. In 

doing so, we recognized the need to redefine ‘‘new source’’ to help clarify 

which facilities would be subject to the 

new source standards being proposed in 

this action. For purposes of the 

revisions to the NESHAP being 

proposed, a new facility would be one 

that commences construction or 

reconstruction after February 8, 2012. 

All other sources are considered 

existing facilities for purposes of these 

proposed amendments. 

In evaluating options for a more 

stringent emissions limit for new large 

hard chromium electroplating facilities, 

we considered the emissions 

concentrations that could be achieved 

using available add-on control devices 

(such as with a CMP, MPME or high 

efficiency scrubber) or a combination of 

add-on controls (such as a CMP plus a 

HEPA filter or an MPME plus a HEPA 

filter) and the emissions concentrations 

that could be achieved using WAFS. To 

analyze the level of emissions that can 

be achieved with add-on controls, we 

evaluated available data on the 

emissions concentrations that are 

achieved by existing hard chromium 

electroplating facilities that have 

various add-on controls or combinations 

of controls. Based on our analysis, we 

conclude that the best available control 

technology configurations, such as CMP 

plus a HEPA filter, a MPME plus a 

HEPA filter, or a high efficiency 

scrubber, can achieve emissions 

concentrations of approximately 0.003 

mg/dscm or lower. We also considered 

the costs associated with each of these 

types of control configurations. We 

estimate that the capital cost to install 

a CMP plus a HEPA filter for a new large 

hard chromium source is about 

$306,400 and that the annualized costs 

would be $109,300/yr. We also estimate 

that the capital and annualized costs for 

the other comparable control technology 

configurations would be no greater than 

these. We conclude that these costs are 

reasonable for new sources that choose 

one of these combinations of add-on 

controls to minimize emissions. 

Nevertheless, as discussed in section 

IV.A.5 of this preamble, maintaining 

affected tanks below the proposed 

surface tension limits, which would be 

a cost-effective compliance option for 

new large hard chromium sources, 

would limit chromium emissions 

concentrations to less than 0.006 mg/ 

dscm. The combination of add-on 

controls described above (e.g., CMP plus 

HEPA filter or an MPME plus HEPA 

filter or a high efficiency scrubber) can 

reliably achieve emissions of 0.003 mg/ 

dscm or lower at a reasonable cost for 

those new sources that choose to use 

these add-on controls to comply with 

the NESHAP instead of WAFS. The 

available data indicate that all existing 

hard chromium electroplating sources 

that use these add-on controls (e.g., 

CMP plus HEPA filter or an MPME plus 

HEPA filter) achieve emissions of 0.003 

mg/dscm or lower, well below 0.006 

mg/dscm. Moreover, based on the data 

that we have, 60 percent of all existing 

large hard chromium facilities already 

achieve emissions below 0.006 

regardless of the type of controls they 

use. For example, many facilities that 

only have a CMP alone (without the 

HEPA filter) have emissions below 

0.006 mg/dscm. Therefore, we conclude 

that some new facilities may be able to 

achieve emissions below 0.006 mg/dscm 

with only a CMP, which would be lower 

costs than those costs mentioned above 

for the combination of controls. Taking 

into account an allowance for variability 

in emission testing and control device 

performance for those sources that 

comply using add-on controls, and to 

provide new facilities the flexibility to 

use WAFS to minimize emissions to 

comply with the emissions limit as an 

alternative to add-on controls, we are 

proposing an emissions limit of 0.006 

mg/dscm for new sources. That is, we 

are proposing to require affected tanks 

at new large hard chromium 

electroplating facilities to meet an 

emissions limit of 0.006 mg/dscm. 

Today’s action would also allow new 

large hard chromium electroplating 

sources the option of meeting the 

proposed surface tension limits (40 

dynes/cm by stalagmometer and 33 

dynes/cm by tensiometer) as an 

alternative to the proposed emissions 

limit of 0.006 mg/dscm. 

2. Emissions Limits for Small Hard 

Chromium Electroplating 

a. Emissions Limits for Small Hard 

Chromium Sources. As we did for large 

hard chromium electroplating, 

described above to evaluate possible 

options to reduce the emissions limits, 

we compiled and ranked the available 

data, which indicate that more than 80 

percent of the currently operating small 

hard chromium electroplating sources 

have emissions concentrations below 

the current emissions limit for new 

small hard chromium electroplating 

sources (i.e., 0.015 mg/dscm). We have 

such data for 73 tanks at 56 facilities 

located in States other than California. 

We estimate that there are a total of 450 

small hard chromium plants in the U.S., 

with 36 of those plants located in 

California and 414 plants located in 

other States. The plants located in 

California have considerably lower 

emissions on average compared to 

plants in other States. We evaluated 

three possible options for a more 

stringent standard for these small hard 

chromium electroplating sources, 

considering the costs and emissions 

reductions that would be achieved 

under each of these options. Table 3 

summarizes the emissions reductions, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6641 

costs, and cost effectiveness associated 

with these options. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR POTENTIAL REVISED EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR SMALL HARD CHROMIUM

ELECTROPLATING FACILITIES

Option Numer of 

plants 

Emissions 

reductions, 

lbs/yr 

Capital 

costs, $ 

Annualized 

costs, $/yr 

Cost 

effectiveness, 

$/lb 

Reduce emissions limit to 0.015 mg/dscm 

Existing Small Hard Chromium ........................................ 85 41 $1,445,000 $652,000 $15,800 

Reduce emissions limit to 0.010 mg/dscm 

Existing Small Hard Chromium ........................................ 140 64 2,447,000 1,225,000 19,200 

New * Small Hard Chromium ........................................... 34 7 571,000 243,000 36,000 

Reduce emissions limit to 0.006 mg/dscm 

Existing Small Hard Chromium ........................................ 171 81 3,161,000 1,585,000 19,700 

New * Small Hard Chromium ........................................... 80 35 1,268,000 653,000 18,800 

* The term ‘‘new’’ as used in this table refers to sources subject to the new source limit in the current NESHAP (i.e., sources that were constructed or reconstructed after December 16, 1993). 

The first option evaluated was to 

require existing small hard chromium 

electroplating plants to meet the 

emissions limit currently required for 

new small hard chromium 

electroplating plant (i.e., 0.015 mg/ 

dscm). As described above, the current 

NESHAP (promulgated in 1995), 

includes a limit of 0.03 for existing 

sources and a limit of 0.015 for new 

sources (those constructed or 

reconstructed after December 16, 1993). 

We decided that it was appropriate to 

evaluate this option since many small 

hard chromium plants (those 

constructed or reconstructed since 

December 16, 1993) are already subject 

to this limit and because the vast 

majority of currently operating small 

hard chromium plants are achieving 

emissions at or below this level. 

We also considered a more stringent 

option of proposing a limit of 0.006 mg/ 

dscm for the same reason described 

previously for large hard chromium 

electroplating. That is, an emissions 

limit of 0.006 mg/dscm would be 

equivalent to the concentration that can 

be achieved when WAFS are used to 

control emissions and the surface 

tension in the affected chromium 

electroplating tank is maintained by the 

revised limits that are being proposed in 

this action. 

Finally, as a third option, we 

evaluated a possible emissions limit of 

0.010 mg/dscm for small hard 

chromium electroplating plants to 

provide an intermediate option that is 

more stringent than the first option of 

0.015 mg/dscm, but less stringent than 

the second option of 0.006 mg/dscm. 

These options are described in more 

detail in the following paragraphs. 

As noted above, the first option we 

considered was to propose that all 

currently operating small hard 

chromium facilities meet the new 

source limit in the current NESHAP 

(i.e., 0.015 mg/dscm). Under this option, 

we estimate that 55 plants (12 percent 

of the total small hard chromium plants 

nationwide) would need to reduce 

emissions to comply with this option 

because they have emissions at or above 

0.015 mg/dscm. We also assume that an 

additional 30 plants (7 percent) that 

have emissions close to this level (i.e., 

have emissions concentrations greater 

than 0.012 mg/dscm) would likely need 

to make adjustments and reduce 

emissions to ensure continuous 

compliance with a limit of 0.015 mg/ 

dscm. Under this option we estimate 

that 85 small hard chromium facilities 

(about 19 percent of the total) would 

reduce emissions. We assume that most 

of these 85 facilities would achieve 

these extra reductions with the addition 

of fume suppressants. However, we also 

assume that some facilities would need 

to install new add-on control devices or 

retrofit their existing controls to meet 

the limit. 

The total estimated capital costs for 

all small hard chromium electroplating 

sources to comply with this option and 

conduct the necessary testing and 

monitoring would be $1.45 million, and 

the average capital costs per facility 

across all facilities would be $5,300. 

The total annualized costs are estimated 

to be $650,000, and the average annual 

cost per facility across all facilities is 

$2,400. These costs include the costs for 

controls (WAFS and add-on controls) 

plus testing. The annualized costs per 

facility are estimated to range from $0 

to $22,000 per year. We estimate that 

this option would reduce chromium 

emissions by 41.3 pounds per year, and 

that the cost-effectiveness would be 

$15,800 per pound. More information 

about the estimates of costs and 

reductions and how they were derived 

are provided in the technical document 

‘‘Procedures for Determining Control 

Costs and Cost Effectiveness for 

Chromium Electroplating Supplemental 

Proposal’’, which is available in the 

docket for this action. 

Another option evaluated was to 

lower the limit for existing and new 

sources to 0.01 mg/dscm. Under this 

option we estimate that 174 small hard 

chromium facilities (about 39 percent of 

the total) would need to reduce 

emissions. We assume that most of these 

174 facilities would achieve these extra 

reductions with the addition of fume 

suppressants. However, we also assume 

that several facilities would need to 

install new add-on control devices or 

retrofit their existing controls to meet 

the limit. 

The total estimated capital costs for 

all small hard chromium electroplating 

sources to comply with this option and 

conduct the necessary testing and 

monitoring would be $3.02 million and 

the average capital costs per facility 

across all facilities would be $17,400. 

The total annualized costs are estimated 

to be about $1.47 million, and the 

average annual cost per facility across 

all facilities would be about $8,400. We 

estimate that this option would reduce 

emissions by 71 pounds per year, and 

that the cost-effectiveness would be 

about $20,700 per pound. Moreover, the 

incremental cost-effectiveness (i.e., the 

increased costs per pound that result 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6642 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

from increasing the level of stringency 

from option 1 to option 2) is estimated 

to be about $27,000 per pound. This 

option would also result in more 

facilities needing to install or retrofit 

add-on controls and would have more 

significant impacts on small businesses 

compared to option 1. 

We also considered the more stringent 

option of lowering the limit to 0.006 

mg/dscm, which would be consistent 

with the emissions that can be achieved 

using WAFS and maintaining the 

surface tension below the limit being 

proposed in this action. However, the 

number of facilities affected, the costeffectiveness, and incremental costeffectiveness were significantly higher 

than the estimated costs and impacts for 

the two options presented above (as 

indicated in Table 3), and would result 

in greater economic impacts to small 

businesses. 

After considering the impacts of these 

three options, we are proposing to 

reduce the emissions limit for existing 

small hard chromium electroplating 

sources to 0.015 mg/dscm, which is 

equal to the MACT limit we established 

for new small hard chromium 

electroplating sources when we first 

promulgated the NESHAP (60 FR 4963, 

January 25, 1995). 

As an alternative to meeting the 

proposed emissions limits, we are 

proposing to allow existing small hard 

chromium electroplating facilities to 

meet the surface tension limits that are 

also being proposed in this action. The 

proposed surface tension limits would 

be 40 dynes/cm, if measured using a 

stalagmometer, and 33 dynes/cm, if 

measured using a tensiometer. Section 

IV.A.5 of this preamble discusses the 

analyses performed and the basis for 

these proposed surface tension limits. 

As described in section IV.A.5 of this 

preamble, we conclude that maintaining 

surface tension at this level would 

reflect a level of emissions that is lower 

than the emissions limit (of 0.015 mg/ 

dscm) proposed above. 

b. Compliance Testing and 

Monitoring. To demonstrate compliance, 

we are proposing that each facility 

would need to provide a new or 

previous performance stack emissions 

test that is representative of current 

operations and current controls and is 

conducted at the exit of the control 

device to show they are in compliance 

with the emissions limit. Or, as an 

alternative, facilities can demonstrate 

compliance with the MACT standard by 

monitoring surface tension and 

demonstrate that they maintain the 

surface tension below the proposed 

limits of 40 dynes/cm, if measured with 

a stalagmometer, and 33 dynes/cm, if 

measured with a tensiometer. 

c. Estimated Costs and Impacts for 

Small Hard Chromium Facilities. 

We estimate that 85 small hard 

chromium facilities (about 19 percent of 

the total) would reduce emissions to 

ensure compliance with the proposed 

limit. We assume that most of these 85 

facilities would achieve these extra 

reductions with the addition of fume 

suppressants. However, we also assume 

that some facilities would need to 

install new add-on control devices or 

retrofit their existing controls to meet 

the limit. We estimate that 26 plants 

would be required only to conduct 

performance tests; and the remaining 

plants would not be required to test or 

add additional controls. 

The total estimated capital costs for 

all small hard chromium electroplating 

sources to comply with the proposed 

revised limits and conduct the 

necessary testing and monitoring is 

estimated to be $1.45 million and the 

average capital costs per facility are 

$5,300. The total annualized costs are 

estimated to be $650,000, and the 

average annual cost per facility is 

$2,400. We estimate that these 

requirements will reduce chromium 

emissions by 41.3 pounds per year, and 

that the cost-effectiveness would be 

$15,800 per pound. We conclude that 

these costs (e.g., total capital and 

annualized costs, and the costs per 

plant) and the cost effectiveness are 

reasonable, particularly since 

hexavalent chromium is a known 

human carcinogen. 

d. Emissions Limits for New Small 

Hard Chromium Sources. 

For new small hard chromium 

facilities, we considered options for a 

more stringent emissions limit based on 

the same type of analysis described 

above for large hard chromium 

electroplating sources. As is the case for 

large hard chromium electroplating, we 

are also proposing to re-define new 

source as those sources, the 

construction or reconstruction of which 

commenced after February 8, 2012. 

For the reasons described previously 

(in section IV.A.1.d) for large hard 

chromium electroplating facilities, we 

are proposing to require new small hard 

chromium electroplating facilities, to 

limit emissions from affected tanks to 

0.006 mg/dscm. Those reasons include 

the findings that add-on controls (such 

as a CMP plus HEPA filter) or WAFS 

can achieve this level of emissions at 

new hard chromium sources for a 

reasonable cost. We estimate that 

installing a combination of CMP with 

HEPA filter on a new small hard 

chromium electroplating source would 

result in capital costs of $127,000 and 

annualized costs of $45,000 per year. 

Furthermore, we believe that sources 

could meet this level with other control 

configurations or with WAFS alone for 

lower costs. We conclude that any new 

source should be able to achieve this 

level of performance with typical addon control devices or with use of WAFS. 

Today’s action would also allow new 

small hard chromium electroplating 

sources the option of meeting the 

proposed surface tension limits (40 

dynes/cm by stalagmometer and 33 

dynes/cm by tensiometer) as an 

alternative to the proposed emissions 

limit of 0.006 mg/dscm. 

3. Decorative Chromium Electroplating 

a. Emissions Limits for Existing and 

New Sources. As described above, the 

current emissions limit for decorative 

chromium electroplating is 0.010 mg/ 

dscm. We reviewed the available data 

on existing sources in the decorative 

chromium electroplating source 

category to determine the typical level 

of emissions performance and range of 

performance among those sources to 

assess options for revising the current 

limit. We also reviewed the available 

data on surface tension levels and the 

relationship of surface tension to 

emissions concentrations since most 

decorative chromium electroplating 

tanks rely primarily or entirely on 

WAFS to limit emissions. WAFS are the 

most common method for limiting 

emissions from these facilities. 

With regard to emissions 

concentration data, we have data from 

20 tanks at 17 facilities. Based on these 

data, the emissions concentrations from 

these 20 tanks are all less than 0.007. 

The highest value is 0.0066 mg/dscm. 

Two of these tanks (about 11 percent) 

have emissions between 0.006 to 0.0066. 

All the other tanks in this data set 

(about 89 percent) have emissions 

concentrations below 0.006 mg/dscm. 

Some tanks have emissions much lower 

than 0.006 mg/dscm. 

With regard to our analysis of surface 

tension and its relationship with 

emissions concentrations, as described 

in section IV.A.5 below (and in more 

details in the ‘‘Development of Revised 

Surface Tension Limits for Chromium 

Electroplating and Anodizing Tanks 

Controlled with Wetting Agent Fume 

Suppressants,’’ which is available in the 

docket for this action), we conclude that 

maintaining surface tension to 40 

dynes/cm (as measured by a 

stalagmometer) and 33 dynes/cm (as 

measured with a tensiometer) in 

decorative chromium electroplating 

baths would maintain emissions below 

0.006 mg/dscm. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6643 

After reviewing these data and 

evaluating various regulatory options, 

we are proposing to lower the limit for 

existing decorative electroplating tanks 

to 0.007 mg/dscm, which would be a 30 

percent reduction from the current limit 

of 0.01 mg/dscm. Our general approach 

to choosing this option was similar to 

that explained previously for hard 

chromium electroplating. On the one 

hand, the available data indicate that 

most decorative chromium 

electroplating sources have emissions 

well below the current emissions limit 

of 0.010 mg/dscm. As noted above, all 

sources in our data set have emissions 

concentrations below 0.007 mg/dscm. 

Thus, we concluded that a more 

stringent limit could achieve reductions 

in emissions, particularly in terms of 

allowable emissions, without imposing 

a significant burden on the industry. On 

the other hand, the large majority of 

decorative chromium electroplating 

tanks are controlled with WAFS, and 

the available surface tension data 

indicate that emissions from these 

source are in the range of 0.004 to 0.006 

mg/dscm (as described further in 

section IV.A.5). We considered this 

concentration range as a lower bound to 

what could reasonably be required. 

Therefore, we decided to select an 

option between 0.006 and 0.01 mg/dscm 

for further evaluation. Subsequently, we 

chose to evaluate 0.007 mg/dscm for 

this thorough evaluation since this is 

the upper end of the emissions levels for 

sources in our data set. 

Although all facilities in our data set 

that use an add-on control device have 

emissions below 0.007 mg/dscm, we 

realize that some sources (an estimated 

8 facilities) currently have emissions 

relatively close to this limit and 

therefore would likely need to make 

adjustments and achieve reductions to 

ensure continuous compliance with the 

proposed 0.007 mg/dscm level. Based 

on the available emissions 

concentration data, we estimate that 

about 8 facilities may need to reduce 

emissions to ensure compliance with 

this limit. (See the technical support 

document ‘‘Procedures for Determining 

Control Costs and Cost Effectiveness for 

Chromium Electroplating Supplemental 

Proposal’’ which is available in the 

docket for more details). However, it is 

important to note that sources would 

have the choice to comply with the 

standard either by demonstrating 

emissions are less than 0.007 mg/dscm 

(with a stack test), or by maintaining 

surface tension below 40 dynes/cm (as 

measured by a stalagmometer) or 33 

dynes/cm (as measured with the 

tensiometer), as described further in 

section IV.A.5 below. We believe that 

most of the decorative chromium 

facilities would choose this surface 

tension compliance approach. 

Nevertheless, we estimate that by 

lowering the limit to 0.007 mg/dscm 

(and recognizing that plants would have 

the option to demonstrate compliance 

by meeting the surface tension limits), 

the total capital costs for all decorative 

chromium electroplating facilities to 

comply with this option and to conduct 

all the necessary testing and monitoring 

would be $183,000, and the average 

capital costs per facility would be $400. 

The total annualized costs are estimated 

to be $189,000, and the average annual 

cost per facility is $390. We estimate 

that this option would reduce emissions 

by 39 pounds per year, and that the 

cost-effectiveness would be $4,800 per 

pound. 

We also considered other options, but 

we concluded that proposing a limit of 

0.007 was the most appropriate option. 

Therefore, we are proposing an 

emissions limit of 0.007 mg/dscm for 

existing decorative chromium 

electroplating sources. We conclude that 

this lower proposed limit would likely 

require no costs for add-on controls for 

these sources since all facilities for 

which we have data are already 

performing below this level with their 

current controls and that all the other 

facilities (that may need to achieve 

reductions) will do so by adding fume 

suppressants rather than installing addon controls or retrofitting their existing 

controls. 

This limit of 0.007 mg/dscm would 

apply to any affected decorative 

chromium electroplating source that is 

controlled with an add-on emission 

control device and chooses to 

demonstrate compliance with a stack 

emissions test. 

As an alternative to meeting the 

proposed emissions limit, we are 

proposing to allow existing decorative 

chromium electroplating facilities to 

meet the surface tension limits that are 

also being proposed in this action. The 

proposed surface tension limits would 

be 40 dynes/cm, if measured using a 

stalagmometer, and 33 dynes/cm, if 

measured using a tensiometer. Section 

IV.A.5 of this preamble discusses the 

analyses performed and the basis for 

these proposed surface tension limits. 

As described in section IV.A.5 of this 

preamble, we conclude that maintaining 

surface tension at this level would 

reflect a level of emissions that is lower 

than the emissions limit (of 0.007 mg/ 

dscm) proposed above. 

With regard to new sources, we are 

proposing to require new decorative 

chromium electroplating tanks meet an 

emissions limit of 0.006 mg/dscm, 

consistent with the proposed new 

source limit for hard chromium 

electroplating sources. As explained 

previously, the available data indicate 

that chromium electroplating plants that 

use WAFS to control emissions and 

maintain the surface tension below the 

proposed limits would meet an 

emissions concentration of 0.006 mg/ 

dscm. Furthermore, the data used to 

develop these revised surface tension 

limits indicate that WAFS are equally 

effective in controlling emissions from 

hard chromium electroplating tanks and 

from decorative chromium 

electroplating tanks. In addition, the 

available data indicate that over 80 

percent of existing decorative chromium 

electroplating plants with add-on 

controls already meet this proposed new 

source emissions limit. Therefore, new 

facilities should be able to achieve this 

level of emissions at relatively low costs 

by using WAFS or with the type of addon control devices used by existing 

facilities in this source category. As an 

alternative, we are proposing that new 

sources can demonstrate compliance 

with the MACT standards by 

maintaining surface tension limits of 40 

dynes/cm, if measured by 

stalagmometer, and 33 dynes/cm, if 

measured by tensiometer. 

As is the case for hard chromium 

electroplating, today’s action would redefine new sources to clarify which 

emissions limits would apply to a 

specific facility. 

b. Compliance Testing and 

Monitoring. 

To demonstrate compliance, we are 

proposing that each decorative 

chromium electroplating source that 

uses an add-on control device to control 

emissions from affected tanks and 

chooses to comply with the proposed 

emissions limit, rather than the surface 

tension limits, would need to provide a 

new or previous performance stack 

emissions test that is representative of 

current operations and current controls 

and is conducted at the exit of the 

control device to show they are in 

compliance with the emissions limit. 

Facilities that elect the alternative 

option to comply with the surface 

tension limits would be required to 

monitor surface tension, as currently 

required by the NESHAP. 

c. Costs and Impacts for Decorative 

Chromium Electroplating. 

The total estimated capital costs for 

all decorative chromium electroplating 

facilities to comply with these proposed 

revised standards (i.e., lower surface 

tension limits or lower emissions limits) 

and to conduct all the necessary testing 

and monitoring is estimated to be 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6644 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

$183,000, and the average capital costs 

per facility are $400. The total 

annualized costs are estimated to be 

$189,000, and the average annual cost 

per facility across all facilities is $390. 

The range for annualized costs per 

facility are from $0 to $4,200. We 

estimate that these requirements will 

reduce emissions by 39 pounds per 

year, and that the cost-effectiveness 

would be $4,800 per pound. 

4. Chromium Anodizing 

a. Emissions Limits for Existing and 

New Chromium Anodizing Sources. As 

discussed in section III.B.1.d. of this 

preamble, although we did not have the 

data to perform a detailed analysis of 

options for chromium anodizing 

sources, there is a basis for concluding 

that the same emissions limits being 

proposed for decorative chromium 

electroplating would also be appropriate 

for chromium anodizing sources. In 

terms of relative magnitude of 

emissions, the types of emission 

controls commonly used, and the 

emissions limits in the current 

NESHAP, these two source categories 

are similar. With regard to emissions 

levels, based on the available data, the 

average emissions from chromium 

anodizing plants are about 20 percent 

lower than the average emissions from 

decorative electroplating plants, with an 

average of about 0.46 pounds per year 

per facility for anodizing plants and 

0.57 pounds per year per plant for 

decorative chromium electroplating. 

With regard to controls, the majority of 

chromium anodizing and decorative 

chromium electroplating plants rely 

partly or entirely on WAFS to limit 

emissions. Moreover, the tank sizes are 

similar, with an average of about 1,020 

gallons per tank for decorative 

chromium electroplating plants and 

1,380 gallons per tank for chromium 

anodizing plants. Overall, we conclude 

that chromium anodizing plants should 

be able to limit emissions just as 

effectively and to the same level as the 

decorative plants, primarily using 

WAFS, for about the same costs. 

Consequently, we are proposing the 

same emissions limits for new and 

existing chromium anodizing sources as 

are being proposed for decorative 

chromium electroplating sources. That 

is, we are proposing that existing 

chromium anodizing sources would 

have to meet an emissions limit of 0.007 

mg/dscm, and new sources would have 

to meet an emissions limit of 0.006 mg/ 

dscm. Sources would also have the 

option of meeting the proposed surface 

tension limits as an alternative to 

meeting the proposed emissions limits. 

As is the case for hard chromium 

electroplating, today’s action would redefine new sources to clarify which 

emissions limits would apply to a 

specific facility. Nevertheless, since we 

have very limited data on chromium 

anodizing plants, we specifically 

request comments on these proposed 

limits and we seek data and information 

on emissions from these chromium 

anodizing sources, including emissions 

test results, emissions concentration 

data, mass rate emissions (e.g., lbs per 

year), flow rates, and other emissions 

release information. 

b. Compliance Testing and 

Monitoring. To demonstrate compliance, 

we are proposing that each chromium 

anodizing facility that uses an add-on 

control device to control emissions from 

affected tanks and chooses to comply 

with the proposed emissions limit, 

rather than the surface tension limits, 

would need to provide a new or 

previous performance stack emissions 

test that is representative of current 

operations and current controls and is 

conducted at the exit of the control 

device to show they are in compliance 

with the emissions limit. Facilities that 

elect the alternative option to comply 

with the surface tension limits would be 

required to monitor surface tension, as 

currently required by the NESHAP. 

c. Costs and Impacts for Chromic 

Acid Anodizing. 

To meet the proposed lower 

emissions limits and/or the lower 

surface tension limits, we 

conservatively assume that about 50 

percent of facilities will need to use 

additional WAFS, which would result 

in increased annualized costs. Since 

emissions are already quite low for 

these facilities, we assume that no 

facilities will need to install add-on 

controls to meet the lower limits. 

Therefore, the only capital costs will be 

costs for testing. 

The total estimated capital costs for 

all chromic acid anodizing facilities to 

comply with the revised limits, which is 

completely for testing and monitoring, 

is estimated to be $245,000 and the 

average capital costs per facility are 

$1,700. The total annualized costs, 

which include costs for WAFS and 

annualized costs for testing and 

monitoring, are estimated to be $54,000 

and the average annual cost per facility 

across all facilities is $370. The range 

for annualized costs per facility are from 

$0 to $2,600. We estimate that these 

requirements will reduce emissions by 6 

pounds per year, and that the costeffectiveness would be $9,100 per 

pound. More information about the 

estimates of costs and reductions and 

how they were derived are provided in 

the technical support document 

‘‘Procedures for Determining Control 

Costs and Cost Effectiveness for 

Chromium Electroplating Supplemental 

Proposal,’’ which is available in the 

docket for this action. 

5. Surface Tension Limits 

As described in section III.A.2 of this 

preamble, the available data on surface 

tension and emission concentration 

were evaluated in terms of upper 

tolerance limits (UTLs) to help us better 

understand the relationship between 

surface tension and emissions. As a first 

step, we categorized the data according 

to the type of instrument used 

(stalagmometer or tensiometer). We 

discarded any data for which we could 

not identify the measurement 

instrument. 

We analyzed the data for the purpose 

of developing tolerance limits that could 

be used to establish emissions 

concentrations for specified surface 

tension values. Statistical tolerance 

limits are limits within which a stated 

proportion of the population is expected 

to lie. The UTL represents the value 

below which it can be expected that the 

specified percentage of the 

measurements would fall for the 

specified level of confidence in repeated 

sampling. For example, the 95 percent 

UTL with 99 percent confidence level is 

the value for which we can conclude 

with 99 percent certainty or confidence 

that at least 95 percent of the data points 

lie below. We used this UTL approach 

in our analysis at these percent values 

(i.e., the 95 percent UTL with 99 percent 

confidence level). 

To determine the UTL for various 

surface tension limits, we divided the 

surface tension data into intervals that 

had enough data points to calculate the 

mean and standard deviation. Separate 

data sets and intervals were determined 

for surface tension measurements using 

stalagmometers and for measurements 

using tensiometers. We then applied a 

statistical procedure to develop UTLs 

for each surface tension interval. We 

evaluated the results to determine 

appropriate intervals (i.e., surface 

tension limits) that would be achievable 

from a process operating perspective 

and would achieve significant 

reductions in chromium emissions. We 

used these surface tension limits as the 

basis for our proposed decisions 

regarding surface tension. These 

proposed decisions are described 

previously in sections IV.A.1 through 

IV.A.4. The results of the UTL analysis 

indicate that maintaining the surface 

tension below 40 dynes/cm, as 

measured using a stalagmometer, would 

limit emissions to no more than 0.0055 

mg/dscm; and maintaining the surface 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6645 

10Barlowe, G. and Patton, N., 2011. ‘‘Non-PFOS, 

Permanent Mist Suppressants for Hard Chromium 

Plating, Decorative Chromium Plating and Chromic 

Etch Applications’’. March 1, 2011. 

11 Danish, EPA. 2011. Substitution of PFOS for 

use in non-decorative hard chrome plating. Pia 

Brunn Poulsen, Lars K. Gram and Allan Astrup 

Jensen. Danish Environmental Protection Agency. 

Environmental Project No. 1371 2011. 

tension below 32.5 dynes/cm, as 

measured using a tensiometer, would 

limit emissions to no more than 0.0047 

mg/dscm. Recognizing that these 

instruments measure surface tension in 

integer increments, we rounded the 

tensiometer limit to 33 dynes/cm and 

concluded that maintaining these two 

surface tension limits (40 dynes/cm by 

stalagmometer and 33 dynes/cm by 

tensiometer) in chromium electroplating 

and anodizing baths would maintain 

emissions below 0.006 mg/dscm. 

Additional details on the analysis of the 

surface tension data can be found in the 

technical memorandum, ‘‘Development 

of Revised Surface Tension Limits for 

Chromium Electroplating and 

Anodizing Tanks Controlled with 

Wetting Agent Fume Suppressants,’’ 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. 

Based on available data, many 

facilities that currently use WAFS 

already achieve surface tensions well 

below these levels (i.e., 40 dynes/cm 

and 33 dynes/cm), and based on 

available information, we conclude that 

other facilities can easily achieve these 

levels with a relatively small increase in 

the use of fume suppressants. Therefore, 

as an alternative to meeting the 

proposed emissions limits, we are 

proposing to allow new and existing 

sources in all three source categories 

(hard chromium electroplating, 

decorative chromium electroplating, 

and chromium anodizing) that use 

WAFS to comply with the NESHAP to 

meet these proposed lower surface 

tension limits (40 dynes/cm as 

measured with a stalagmometer and 33 

dynes/cm as measured with a 

tensiometer). 

As mentioned above, in the October 

21, 2010 Federal Register notice (75 FR 

65068), we proposed phasing out the 

use of wetting agent fume suppressants 

(WAFS) that contain perfluorooctyl 

sulfonates (PFOS). Based on available 

information, we continue to believe that 

non-PFOS WAFS are available that can 

effectively limit surface tension for 

about the same costs as PFOS-based 

WAFS, and that these non-PFOS WAFS 

can achieve surface tension levels below 

the proposed surface tension limits 

(described above).10,11 However, to be 

conservative, we have assumed that the 

costs for non-PFOS WAFS will be 15 

percent higher than the PFOS based 

WAFS and these additional costs have 

been included in the costs presented in 

today’s notice. More information about 

the cost estimates for WAFS and how 

they were derived are provided in the 

technical support document 

‘‘Procedures for Determining Control 

Costs and Cost Effectiveness for 

Chromium Electroplating Supplemental 

Proposal,’’ which is available in the 

docket for this action. 

We are not re-opening the comment 

period on the proposed phase out of the 

use of PFOS-based WAFS. However, we 

are soliciting comment and data on 

whether the proposed surface tension 

limits can be met through the use of 

non-PFOS WAFS. We seek data and 

information on the type of WAFS used, 

what surface tensions have been 

achieved, what hexavalent chromium 

emissions reductions have been 

achieved, fume suppressant costs, and 

detailed information related to the 

feasibility of using different types of 

WAFS. 

B. What are the results of the risk 

assessment? 

1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

Table 4 provides an overall summary 

of the inhalation risk assessment results 

for the source category. 

TABLE 4—CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING AND ANODIZING INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Source category Number of 

facilities 1

Maximum individual cancer 

risk 

(in 1 million) 2 Population 

at risk 

≥ 1-in-1 

million 3

Annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 3

Maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 4

Maximum 

off-site 

acute noncancer HQ Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Hard Chromium Electro-plating ......................... 699 20 50 130,000 0.05 0.02 0.04 5 NA 

Decorative Chromium Electro-plating ............... 577 10 70 43,000 0.02 0.008 0.06 5 NA 

Chromic acid Anodizing .................................... 179 5 60 5,000 0.003 0.004 0.05 5 NA 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 

3Based on actual emissions. 

4 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for these source categories is the respiratory system. 

5 NA = Not applicable. There are no HAP with acute dose-response benchmark values, so no acute HQ were calculated for these source categories. 

As shown in Table 4, the results of the 

inhalation risk assessment for the hard 

chromium electroplating source 

category indicate the maximum lifetime 

individual cancer risk could be up to 

20-in-1 million based on actual 

emission levels of hexavalent 

chromium, and the maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 

0.02. The total estimated national cancer 

incidence from these facilities, based on 

actual emission levels, is 0.05 excess 

cancer cases per year, or one case in 

every 20 years. In addition, we note that 

approximately 1,100 people are 

estimated to have cancer risks greater 

than 10 in one million, and 

approximately 130,000 people are 

estimated to have risks greater than 1- 

in-1 million based on estimates of actual 

emissions. Based on allowable emission 

levels, the maximum lifetime individual 

cancer risk could be up to 50-in-1 

million, and the maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 

0.04. Hexavalent chromium, which is a 

known human carcinogen, is the only 

HAP emitted by these sources and the 

HAP driving all these risks. 

The results of the inhalation risk 

assessment for the decorative chromium 

electroplating source category indicate 

the maximum lifetime individual cancer 

risk could be up to 10-in-1 million 

based on actual emission levels, and the 

maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 

value could be up to 0.008. The total 

estimated national cancer incidence 

from these facilities, based on actual 

emission levels, is 0.02 excess cancer 

cases per year, or one case in every 50 

years. In addition, we note that 

approximately 100 people are estimated 

to have cancer risks greater than 10 in 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6646 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

one million, and approximately 43,000 

people are estimated to have risks 

greater than 1-in-1 million based on 

estimates of actual emissions. Based on 

allowable emission levels, the 

maximum lifetime individual cancer 

risk could be up to 70-in-1 million, and 

the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 

value could be up to 0.06. 

The results of the inhalation risk 

assessment for the chromic acid 

anodizing source category indicate the 

maximum lifetime individual cancer 

risk could be up to 5-in-1 million based 

on actual emission levels, and the 

maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 

value could be up to 0.004. The total 

estimated national cancer incidence 

from these facilities, based on actual 

emission levels, is 0.003 excess cancer 

cases per year, or one case in every 333 

years. In addition, we note that no 

people are estimated to have cancer 

risks greater than 10-in-1 million, and 

approximately 5,000 people are 

estimated to have risks greater than 1- 

in-1 million. Based on allowable 

emission levels, the maximum lifetime 

individual cancer risk could be up to 

60-in-1 million, and the maximum 

chronic noncancer TOSHI value could 

be up to 0.05. 

The cancer risk estimates for all of the 

chromium electroplating source 

categories, especially those based on 

actual emissions, are considerably 

different compared to the results that 

were presented in the initial RTR 

proposal on October 21, 2010, (75 FR 

65071). The risks due to the estimates of 

actual emissions presented above are 

considerably lower than those presented 

in the October 21, 2010 proposal FR 

Notice for hard chromium and 

decorative chromium plants. However, 

the risks due to actual emissions for 

chrome anodizing are about the same as 

the October 2010 proposal. The revised 

estimate of risks based on allowable 

emissions presented above are lower for 

hard chromium, about the same for 

decorative, and considerably higher for 

anodizing plants compared to the 

October 2010 proposal. The main reason 

for the difference is that we have 

significantly improved data on 

emissions and facility characteristics for 

this supplemental proposal, and we 

used a different methodology to 

estimate emissions for facilities for 

which we had incomplete data. This 

improved data set is described further in 

section II.E of this preamble, and the 

methodology is described in section 

III.B. 

For all three source categories, there 

were no reported emissions of PB–HAP, 

and chromium emissions are not known 

to have any associated adverse 

environmental impacts; therefore, we 

conclude there is low potential for 

human health multipathway risks or 

adverse environmental impacts. Also, 

because there are no HAP with acute 

dose-response benchmark values, no 

acute HQ were calculated for these 

source categories, and we believe that 

the potential for acute effects is low. 

2. Facility-Wide Risk Assessment 

Results 

Table 5 displays the results of the 

facility-wide risk assessment. This 

assessment was conducted based on 

actual emission levels. For detailed 

facility-specific results, see Appendix 5 

of the ‘‘Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Chromic Acid Anodizing, Decorative 

Chromium Electroplating, and Hard 

Chromium Electroplating Source 

Categories’’ which is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

TABLE 5—CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING AND ANODIZING FACILITY–WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Source category Hard chromium 

electroplating 

Decorative chromium electroplating Chromium 

anodizing 

Number of facilities analyzed ............................................................................ 699 577 179 

Cancer Risk: 

Estimated maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million) ............... 70 80 10 

Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide individual cancer risk of 100- 

in-1 million or more ........................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Number of facilities at which the source category contributes 50 percent or 

more to the facility-wide individual cancer risks of 100-in-1 million or more 0 0 0 

Number of facilities at which the source category contributes 50 percent or 

more to the facility-wide individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more ...... 195 98 31 

Chronic Noncancer Risk: 

Maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI ............................................. 2 7 0 .1 

Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum noncancer TOSHI greater 

than 1 ............................................................................................................. 1 2 0 

Number of facilities at which the source category contributes 50 percent or 

more to the facility-wide maximum noncancer TOSHI of 1 or more ............. 0 0 0 

The facility-wide MIR from all HAP 

emissions at a facility that contains 

sources subject to the hard chromium 

electroplating MACT standards is 

estimated to be 70-in-1 million, based 

on actual emissions. Of the 699 facilities 

included in this analysis, none have a 

facility-wide MIR of 100-in-1 million or 

greater. There are 206 facilities with 

facility-wide MIR of 1-in-1 million or 

greater, of which 195 have hard 

chromium electroplating operations that 

contribute greater than 50 percent to the 

facility-wide risks. The facility-wide 

maximum individual chronic noncancer 

TOSHI value is estimated to be 2, based 

on actual emissions, and there is 1 

facility with a facility-wide maximum 

individual chronic noncancer TOSHI 

value greater than 1. Hard chromium 

electroplating operations do not 

contribute greater than 50 percent to the 

facility-wide maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI value at any facility. 

The facility-wide MIR from all HAP 

emissions at a facility that contains 

sources subject to the decorative 

chromium electroplating MACT 

standards is estimated to be 80-in-1 

million, based on actual emissions. Of 

the 577 facilities included in this 

analysis, none have a facility-wide MIR 

of 100-in-1 million or greater. There are 

121 facilities with a facility-wide MIR of 

1-in-1 million or greater, of which 98 

have decorative chromium 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6647 

electroplating operations that contribute 

greater than 50 percent to the facilitywide risks. The facility-wide maximum 

individual chronic noncancer TOSHI 

value is estimated to be 7, based on 

actual emissions, and there are 2 

facilities with facility-wide maximum 

individual chronic noncancer TOSHI 

values greater than one. Decorative 

chromium electroplating operations do 

not contribute greater than 50 percent to 

the facility-wide maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI value at any facility. 

The facility-wide MIR from all HAP 

emissions at a facility that contains 

sources subject to the chromium 

anodizing MACT standards is estimated 

to be 10-in-1 million, based on actual 

emissions. Of the 179 facilities included 

in this analysis, none have a facilitywide MIR of 100-in-1 million or greater. 

There are 35 facilities with a facilitywide MIR of 1-in-1 million or greater, of 

which 31 have chromium anodizing 

operations that contribute greater than 

50 percent to the facility-wide risks. The 

facility-wide maximum individual 

chronic noncancer TOSHI value is 

estimated to be 0.1. 

3. Demographic Analysis Results 

To examine the potential for any 

environmental justice (EJ) issues that 

might be associated with these source 

categories, we performed demographic 

analyses of the at-risk populations (i.e., 

the population with estimated lifetime 

cancer risks greater than or equal to 1- 

in-1 million due to emissions from 

chromium electroplaters) for two of the 

three chromium electroplating 

categories. The results of the 

demographic analyses are summarized 

in Table 6. These results, for various 

demographic groups, are based on the 

estimated risks from actual emissions 

levels for the population living within 

50 km of the facilities. 

TABLE 6—HARD AND DECORATIVE CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS

Nationwide Hard chromium 

electroplating 

Decorative chromium electroplating 

Population with cancer risk at or above 

1-in-1 Million 

Total Population ......................................................................................................... 312,900,000 131,000 43,000 

Race by Percent 

White .......................................................................................................................... 72 59 48 

All Other Races ......................................................................................................... 28 41 52 

Race by Percent 

White .......................................................................................................................... 72 59 48 

African American ....................................................................................................... 13 21 21

Native American ........................................................................................................ 1.1 0.8 0.8 

Other and Multiracial ................................................................................................. 14 20 30 

Ethnicity by Percent 

Hispanic ..................................................................................................................... 17 34 26 

Non-Hispanic ............................................................................................................. 83 66 74 

Income by Percent 

Below Poverty Level .................................................................................................. 14 21 24 

Above Poverty Level .................................................................................................. 86 79 76 

Education by Percent 

Over 25 and without High School Diploma ............................................................... 10 27 24 

Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ................................................................. 90 73 76 

For hard chromium electroplating, the 

results indicate that there are 

approximately 131,000 people exposed 

to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 

million due to emissions from the 

source category. For several 

demographic groups, the percentage of 

such groups in the at-risk population are 

higher than their respective nationwide 

percentages, including the African 

American, Other and Multiracial, 

Hispanic, Below the Poverty Level, and 

Over 25 without a High School Diploma 

demographic groups. These results 

indicate that these demographic groups 

carry the potential to be 

disproportionately exposed to emissions 

and risks from this source category. 

These groups therefore stand to benefit 

the most from the emission reductions 

achieved by this proposed rulemaking. 

For decorative chromium 

electroplating, the results indicate that 

there are approximately 43,000 people 

exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1- 

in-1 million due to emissions from the 

source category. The percentages of the 

at-risk population in several 

demographic groups are higher than 

their respective nationwide percentages, 

including the African American, Other 

and Multiracial, Hispanic, Below the 

Poverty Level, and the Over 25 without 

a High School Diploma demographic 

groups. These results indicate that these 

demographic groups carry the potential 

to be disproportionately exposed to 

emissions and risks from this source 

category. These groups therefore stand 

to benefit the most from the emission 

reductions achieved by this proposed 

rulemaking. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6648 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

C. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability and ample 

margin of safety? 

1. Risk Acceptability 

As noted in the preamble of the 

October 2010 proposal (75 FR 65068), 

we weigh all health risk factors in our 

risk acceptability determination, 

including the MIR, the numbers of 

persons in various cancer and 

noncancer risk ranges, cancer incidence, 

the maximum noncancer HI, the 

maximum acute noncancer hazard, the 

extent of noncancer risks, the potential 

for adverse environmental effects, and 

risk estimation uncertainties (54 FR 

38044, September 14, 1989). 

For each of the three source 

categories, the risk analysis we 

performed indicates that the cancer risk 

to the individual most exposed due to 

actual emissions is well below 100-in-1 

million (an MIR of 100-in-1 million is 

generally considered the upper limit of 

acceptable risk), and that the cancer 

incidence is less than 0.05 cases per 

year (about 1 case in every 20 years). 

These risks are due to hexavalent 

chromium emissions. Hexavalent 

chromium is classified as a known 

human carcinogen by U.S. EPA. While 

the potential cancer risks due to 

allowable emissions from each of the 

three chromium electroplating 

categories are higher, they are also less 

than 100-in-1 million (with the highest 

estimated MIR of 70-in-1 million for the 

decorative chromium electroplating 

category based on allowable emissions). 

Specifically, for hard chromium 

electroplating, the MIR due to actual 

emissions is estimated to be 20-in-1 

million, and the cancer incidence is 

estimated to be 0.05 cases per year. The 

MIR due to allowable emissions from 

hard chromium electroplating facilities 

is estimated to be 50-in-1 million, and 

the cancer incidence is estimated to be 

0.2. For decorative chromium 

electroplating, the MIR due to actual 

emissions is estimated to be 10-in-1 

million, and the cancer incidence is 

estimated to be 0.02 cases per year. The 

MIR due to allowable emissions from 

decorative chromium facilities is 

estimated to be 70-in-1 million, and the 

cancer incidence is estimated to be 0.08. 

For chromium anodizing, the MIR due 

to actual emissions is estimated to be 5- 

in-1 million, and the cancer incidence is 

estimated to be 0.003 cases per year. 

The MIR due to allowable emissions 

from chromium anodizing facilities is 

estimated to be 60-in-1 million, and the 

cancer incidence is estimated to be 0.08. 

Our analysis also indicates that 

chronic noncancer health risks, 

potential acute impacts of concern, 

multipathway health risks and 

environmental risks are all negligible 

due to both actual and allowable 

emissions for all three source categories. 

Although the cancer risks are due to 

emissions of a known human 

carcinogen (hexavalent chromium), 

since the cancer MIRs due to actual 

emissions are well below 100-in-1 

million, and because a number of the 

other risk metrics do not indicate high 

risk concerns, we are proposing to 

determine that the risks due to HAP 

emissions from each of the three source 

categories are acceptable. 

We note that the results of our 

demographic analyses (which are 

presented above) for hard and 

decorative chromium electroplating 

indicate that certain minority groups 

and low-income populations may be 

disproportionately exposed to emissions 

from these categories and to any risks 

that may result due to these emissions 

because the communities most 

proximate to facilities within these 

categories have a higher proportion of 

these groups than the national 

demographic profile. We note that we 

did not identify any vulnerability or 

susceptibility to risks particular to 

minority and low income populations 

from pollutants emitted from this source 

category. The Agency has determined 

that the existing NESHAP for these 

source categories provides an acceptable 

level of risk for all proximate 

populations, including minority and 

low-income populations. 

2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis 

We next considered whether the 

existing MACT standard provides an 

ample margin of safety (AMOS). Under 

the ample margin of safety analysis, we 

evaluate the cost and feasibility of 

available control technologies and other 

measures (including the controls, 

measures, and costs reviewed under the 

technology review) that could be 

applied in each of the three source 

categories to further reduce the risks (or 

potential risks) due to emissions of HAP 

identified in our risk assessment, along 

with all of the health risks and other 

health information considered in the 

risk acceptability determination 

described above. 

Based on the fact that we have 

determined the risks due to actual and 

allowable emissions associated with 

each of the three categories of sources 

subject to the Chromium Electroplating 

NESHAP to be acceptable, and after 

evaluating the costs and feasibility of 

possible options to reduce emissions in 

our technology review, we are 

proposing that the same emission and 

surface tension limits that we are 

proposing under section 112(d)(6) of the 

Clean Air Act, which are discussed 

previously in section IV.A of this 

preamble, will reduce health risks and 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. As described 

below, these proposed actions will 

reduce the modeled estimated 

maximum individual cancer risks and 

the modeled population cancer risks for 

the three source categories. Specifically, 

under Section 112(f) of the Clean Air 

Act, we are proposing the following 

amendments to the NESHAP: 

• Existing large hard chromium 

electroplating facilities would be 

required to meet an emissions limit of 

0.011 mg/dscm or a surface tension 

limit of 40 dynes/cm, if measured by 

stalagmometer, or 33 dynes/cm, if 

measured by tensiometer; 

• New large hard chromium 

electroplating facilities would be 

required to meet an emissions limit of 

0.006 mg/dscm or a surface tension 

limit of 40 dynes/cm, if measured by 

stalagmometer, or 33 dynes/cm, if 

measured by tensiometer; 

• Existing small hard chromium 

electroplating facilities would be 

required to meet an emissions limit of 

0.015 mg/dscm or a surface tension 

limit of 40 dynes/cm, if measured by 

stalagmometer, or 33 dynes/cm, if 

measured by tensiometer; 

• New small hard chromium 

electroplating facilities would be 

required to meet an emissions limit of 

0.006 mg/dscm or a surface tension 

limit of 40 dynes/cm, if measured by 

stalagmometer, or 33 dynes/cm, if 

measured by tensiometer; 

• Existing decorative chromium 

electroplating and chromium anodizing 

facilities would be required to meet an 

emissions limit of 0.007 mg/dscm or a 

surface tension limit of 40 dynes/cm, if 

measured by stalagmometer, or 33 

dynes/cm, if measured by tensiometer; 

• New decorative chromium 

electroplating and chromium anodizing 

facilities would be required to meet an 

emissions limit of 0.006 mg/dscm or a 

surface tension limit of 40 dynes/cm, if 

measured by stalagmometer, or 33 

dynes/cm, if measured by tensiometer. 

These proposed amendments to the 

NESHAP would reduce the cancer risks 

due to emissions of hexavalent 

chromium from this industry for all 

populations, including minority and 

low-income populations. Specifically, 

we estimate that the MIR based on 

actual emissions for each of these 

categories would be reduced by 25 to 50 

percent, and the MIR based on 

allowable emissions would also be 

reduced by 25 to 50 percent. Cancer 

incidence and the number of people 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6649 

exposed to risks greater than 1-in-1 

million would also be reduced 

significantly, by about 25 to 50 percent 

each. 

As described above, we estimate that 

the total estimated capital costs for all 

existing large hard chromium 

electroplating sources to comply with 

the proposed revised limits and conduct 

the necessary testing and monitoring 

would be $1.8 million. The total 

annualized costs are estimated to be 

$2.2 million. We estimate that these 

proposed requirements would reduce 

chromium emissions by 121 pounds per 

year, and that the cost-effectiveness 

would be $18,100 per pound. 

The total estimated capital costs for 

all existing small hard chromium 

electroplating sources to comply with 

the proposed revised limits and conduct 

the necessary testing and monitoring is 

estimated to be $1.45 million. The total 

annualized costs are estimated to be 

$652,000. We estimate that these 

proposed requirements would reduce 

chromium emissions by 41 pounds per 

year, and that the cost-effectiveness 

would be $15,800 per pound. 

The total estimated capital costs for 

all existing decorative chromium 

electroplating facilities to comply with 

these proposed revised standards (i.e., 

lower surface tension limits or lower 

emissions limits) and to conduct all the 

necessary testing and monitoring is 

estimated to be $183,000. The total 

annualized costs are estimated to be 

$189,000. We estimate that these 

proposed requirements would reduce 

emissions by 39 pounds per year, and 

that the cost-effectiveness would be 

$4,800 per pound. 

The total estimated capital costs for 

all existing chromic acid anodizing 

facilities to comply with the proposed 

revised limits and conduct the 

necessary testing and monitoring is 

estimated to be $245,000. The total 

annualized costs are estimated to be 

$54,000. We estimate that these 

proposed requirements would reduce 

emissions by 6 pounds per year, and 

that the cost-effectiveness would be 

$9,100 per pound. 

We conclude that the costs for all four 

categories or subcategories described 

above are reasonable given the risk 

reductions that will be achieved. 

Based on all the above information, 

we propose that the NESHAP as revised 

with these proposed requirements will 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health by lowering 

emission levels and reducing cancer risk 

for all populations, including minority 

and low-income populations. 

D. Compliance Dates 

We are proposing to require existing 

facilities to comply with the proposed 

revised emissions limits or revised 

surface tension requirements no later 

than 2 years after the date of publication 

of the final rule. We believe this much 

time is needed for facilities to determine 

if they meet the proposed emissions 

limits, which would likely require 

conducting an emissions test. 

Scheduling a compliance test, 

conducting the test, and receiving the 

results, could take as much as 4 to 6 

months. At that time, affected facilities 

that do not meet the proposed emissions 

limit would have to perform an 

engineering analysis to determine the 

control options, decide on what 

additional controls are needed, send out 

a tender notice, evaluate the bids 

received, and contract the installation 

and testing of the new equipment. Since 

most chromium electroplating facilities 

do not have in-house engineering 

expertise, they would likely have to hire 

consultants to perform all of the above 

work, and that would add to the time 

required. 

We are proposing that all new 

facilities (newly constructed or 

reconstructed) must comply with the 

proposed revised emissions limits or 

surface tension requirements upon 

startup. We are proposing to require 

compliance with the electronic 

reporting requirements, which are 

discussed in section VII below, upon 

promulgation of the final rule. 

V. What action are we proposing for the 

steel pickling source category? 

A. Elimination of an Alternative 

Compliance Option 

As a result of the review of the 

NESHAP, we are proposing the 

elimination of language in the NESHAP 

that allows HCl regeneration facilities to 

establish an alternative chlorine 

concentration standard for existing acid 

regeneration plants. The NESHAP 

currently allows the owner or operator 

to request approval for a source-specific 

standard based on the maximum design 

temperature and minimum excess air 

that allows production of iron oxide of 

acceptable quality if the source is 

unable to meet the otherwise applicable 

emissions limit for chlorine (Cl2) of 6 

parts per million by volume (ppmv) (40 

CFR subpart CCC). Upon review of this 

provision, we believe that it does not 

meet the requirements in section 

112(d)(2) and (3) of the CAA. MACT 

standards for existing sources cannot be 

less stringent than the average emissions 

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing 

sources in the category or subcategory 

(or the best-performing five sources for 

categories or subcategories with fewer 

than 30 sources). This is referred to as 

the ‘‘MACT floor.’’ The promulgated 

standard in 40 CFR part 63, 

§ 63.1157(b)(2), subpart CCC, was 

established in compliance with EPA’s 

obligation to promulgate a standard 

representing the MACT floor. We do not 

have authority to allow a source to seek 

an alternative standard if such a source 

is unable to meet a standard which 

reflects the MACT floor level of control. 

Therefore, we are proposing to amend 

the NESHAP by removing the language 

in § 63.1157(b)(2) that currently allows 

a source-specific standard for sources 

that demonstrate they are unable to 

meet the applicable standard and 

removing the methods for establishing a 

source-specific standard under 

§ 63.1161(c)(2) of the NESHAP. This 

action is being proposed under section 

112(d)(2) and (3) of the CAA to ensure 

that the NESHAP is consistent with 

requirements of that section. 

In addition to fulfilling the statutory 

requirements of Sections 112(d)(2) and 

(3), we note that this proposed action 

also will reduce the emissions of 

chlorine and HCl from this source 

category, resulting in a reduction of the 

Hazard Index (HI) from 2 due to HCl 

(that was presented in the October 21, 

2010 proposal) to an HI of less than one. 

The one facility that posed the HI of 2 

(in the October 21, 2010 proposal) will 

need to improve controls and reduce 

emissions by more than a factor of 2 to 

comply with this proposed action. 

B. Compliance Dates 

We are proposing that the 

amendments to § 63.1157(b)(2) and 

§ 63.1161(c)(2) of the NESHAP would be 

effective upon promulgation of the final 

rule. 

VI. What other actions are we 

proposing? 

A. Electronic Reporting 

EPA must have performance test data 

to conduct effective reviews of CAA 

sections 112 and 129 standards, as well 

as for many other purposes including 

compliance determinations, emission 

factor development, and annual 

emission rate determinations. In 

conducting these required reviews, EPA 

has found it ineffective and time 

consuming, not only for us, but also for 

regulatory agencies and source owners 

and operators, to locate, collect, and 

submit performance test data because of 

varied locations for data storage and 

varied data storage methods. In recent 

years, though, stack testing firms have 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6650 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

typically collected performance test data 

in electronic format, making it possible 

to move to an electronic data submittal 

system that would increase the ease and 

efficiency of data submittal and improve 

data accessibility. 

Through this proposal, EPA is 

presenting a step to increase the ease 

and efficiency of data submittal and 

improve data accessibility. Specifically, 

EPA is proposing that owners and 

operators of facilities in the Hard and 

Decorative Chromium Electroplating 

and Chromium Anodizing source 

categories and the Steel Pickling—HCl 

Process Facilities and Hydrochloric 

Acid Regeneration Plants source 

categories submit electronic copies of 

required performance test reports to 

EPA’s WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE 

database was constructed to store 

performance test data for use in 

developing emission factors. A 

description of the WebFIRE database is 

available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ 

oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. 

As proposed above, data entry would 

be through an electronic emissions test 

report structure called the Electronic 

Reporting Tool (ERT). The ERT would 

generate an electronic report which 

would be submitted using the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The 

submitted report would be transmitted 

through EPA’s Central Data Exchange 

(CDX) network for storage in the 

WebFIRE database making submittal of 

data very straightforward and easy. A 

description of the ERT can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ 

index.html and CEDRI can be accessed 

through the CDX Web site 

(www.epa.gov/cdx). 

The proposal to submit performance 

test data electronically to EPA would 

apply only to those performance tests 

conducted using test methods that will 

be supported by the ERT. The ERT 

contains a specific electronic data entry 

form for most of the commonly used 

EPA reference methods. A listing of the 

pollutants and test methods supported 

by the ERT is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. 

We believe that industry would benefit 

from this proposed approach to 

electronic data submittal. Having these 

data, EPA would be able to develop 

improved emission factors, make fewer 

information requests, and promulgate 

better regulations. 

One major advantage of the proposed 

submittal of performance test data 

through the ERT is a standardized 

method to compile and store much of 

the documentation required to be 

reported by this rule. Another advantage 

is that the ERT clearly states what 

testing information would be required. 

Another important proposed benefit of 

submitting these data to EPA at the time 

the source test is conducted is that it 

should substantially reduce the effort 

involved in data collection activities in 

the future. When EPA has performance 

test data in hand, there will likely be 

fewer or less substantial data collection 

requests in conjunction with 

prospective required residual risk 

assessments or technology reviews. This 

would result in a reduced burden on 

both affected facilities (in terms of 

reduced manpower to respond to data 

collection requests) and EPA (in terms 

of preparing and distributing data 

collection requests and assessing the 

results). 

State, local, and tribal agencies could 

also benefit from more streamlined and 

accurate review of electronic data 

submitted to them. The ERT would 

allow for an electronic review process 

rather than a manual data assessment 

making review and evaluation of the 

source provided data and calculations 

easier and more efficient. Finally, 

another benefit of the proposed data 

submittal to WebFIRE electronically is 

that these data would greatly improve 

the overall quality of existing and new 

emissions factors by supplementing the 

pool of emissions test data for 

establishing emissions factors and by 

ensuring that the factors are more 

representative of current industry 

operational procedures. A common 

complaint heard from industry and 

regulators is that emission factors are 

outdated or not representative of a 

particular source category. With timely 

receipt and incorporation of data from 

most performance tests, EPA would be 

able to ensure that emission factors, 

when updated, represent the most 

current range of operational practices. In 

summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development, and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data would save industry, state, 

local, tribal agencies, and EPA 

significant time, money, and effort 

while also improving the quality of 

emission inventories and, as a result, air 

quality regulations. 

VII. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

1. Chromium Electroplating and 

Chromium Anodizing 

For the proposed amendments to the 

Chromium Electroplating NESHAP, the 

affected sources are each hard 

chromium electroplating tank, each 

decorative chromium electroplating 

tank, and each chromium anodizing 

tank located at a facility that performs 

hard chromium electroplating, 

decorative chromium electroplating, or 

chromium anodizing. 

2. Steel Pickling 

For the proposed amendments to the 

Steel Pickling NESHAP, the affected 

sources are hydrochloric acid 

regeneration plants that are major 

sources of HAP. 

B. What are the emission reductions? 

1. Chromium Electroplating and 

Chromium Anodizing 

Overall, the proposed amendments to 

the Chromium Electroplating NESHAP 

would reduce nationwide emissions of 

chromium compounds by an estimated 

208 pounds per year (lbs/yr) from the 

current levels of 1,140 lbs/yr down to 

930 lbs/yr. For large hard chromium 

electroplating, the proposed 

amendments would reduce chromium 

compound emissions by about 121 lbs/ 

yr from 561 lbs/yr down to 440 pounds. 

For small hard chromium electroplating, 

the proposed amendments would 

reduce chromium compound emissions 

by an estimated 41 lbs/yr from 240 lbs/ 

yr to 199 lbs/yr. For decorative 

chromium electroplating, the proposed 

amendments would reduce chromium 

compound emissions by an estimated 40 

lbs/yr from 280 lbs/yr down to 240 lbs/ 

yr. For chromium anodizing, the 

proposed amendments would reduce 

chromium compound emissions by 

about 6 lbs/yr from 66 lbs/yr down to 

60 lbs/yr. The proposed amendments 

would have negligible impacts on 

secondary emissions because the 

additional control equipment that 

would be required would not 

significantly impact energy use by the 

affected facilities. 

2. Steel Pickling 

We estimate that the proposed 

amendment to remove the alternative 

compliance provision for hydrochloric 

acid regeneration facilities would 

reduce emissions of chlorine by 15 tpy. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

1. Chromium Electroplating and 

Chromium Anodizing 

We estimate that these proposed 

amendments would achieve 208 pounds 

reductions in hexavalent chromium 

emissions, and that the total capital and 

total annualized cost for the proposed 

amendments would be $3.7 million and 

$3.1 million/yr, respectively. The 

overall cost effectiveness would be 

$14,900 per pound of hexavalent 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6651 

12http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/data/ 

susb2002.html. 13The SBREFA compliance guidance to EPA 

rulewriters regarding the types of small business 

analysis that should be considered can be found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/GuidanceRegFlexAct.pdf. See Table 2 on page 36 for 

guidance on interpretations of the magnitude of the 

cost-to-sales numbers. 

14U.S. SBA, Office of Advocacy. A Guide for 

Government Agencies, How to Comply with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, Implementing the 

President’s Small Business Agenda and Executive 

Order 13272, June 2010. 

chromium emissions reductions. A 

summary of the estimated costs and 

reductions of hexavalent chromium 

emissions are shown in Table 7. 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED COSTS, REDUCTIONS, AND COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR PROPOSED

REQUIREMENTS FOR CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING AND ANODIZING SOURCE CATEGORIES

Source category or subcategory 

Capital costs 

(controls + 

WAFS + all 

testing) 

Annualized costs 

(controls + 

WAFS + all 

testing), $/yr 

Emissions 

reductions 

(lbs/yr) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/lb) 

Large Hard Chromium Electroplating .............................................. $1,821,000 $2,195,000 121 $18,100 

Small Hard Chromium Electroplating .............................................. 1,445,000 653,000 41 15,800 

Decorative Chromium Electroplating ............................................... 183,000 189,000 39 4,800 

Chromic Acid Anodizing .................................................................. 245,000 54,000 6 9,100 

Total .......................................................................................... 3,694,000 3,090,000 208 14,900 

2. Steel Pickling 

For HCl acid regeneration plants, we 

estimate that the capital cost for the 

proposed amendments would be 

between $100,000 and $200,000, 

depending on whether the existing 

equipment can be upgraded or will need 

to be replaced. The annualized cost are 

estimated to be between $11,419 and 

$22,837 per year. The estimated cost 

effectiveness would be $761 to $1,522 

per ton of HAP (mainly chlorine and 

HCl). 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

1. Chromium Electroplating and 

Chromium Anodizing 

EPA performed a screening analysis 

for impacts on all affected small entities 

by comparing compliance costs to 

average sales revenues by employment 

size category.12 This is known as the 

cost-to-revenue or cost-to-sales ratio, or 

the ‘‘sales test.’’ The ‘‘sales test’’ is the 

impact methodology EPA primarily 

employs in analyzing small entity 

impacts as opposed to a ‘‘profits test,’’ 

in which annualized compliance costs 

are calculated as a share of profits. The 

sales test is frequently used because 

revenues or sales data are commonly 

available for entities impacted by EPA 

regulations, and profits data normally 

made available are often not the true 

profit earned by firms because of 

accounting and tax considerations. The 

use of a ‘‘sales test’’ for estimating small 

business impacts for a rulemaking is 

consistent with guidance offered by EPA 

on compliance with SBREFA 13 and is 

consistent with guidance published by 

the U.S. SBA’s Office of Advocacy that 

suggests that cost as a percentage of total 

revenues is a metric for evaluating cost 

increases on small entities in relation to 

increases on large entities (U.S. SBA, 

2010).14

Based on the analysis, we estimate 

that approximately 96 percent of all 

affected facilities have a cost-to-sales 

ratio of less than 1 percent. In addition, 

for approximately 1 percent of all 

affected facilities, or 9 facilities with 

fewer than 20 employees, the potential 

for cost-to-sales impacts may be 

between 3 and 8 percent. All of these 

facilities are in the hard chromium 

electroplating category, with 2 of the 

facilities in the small hard chromium 

electroplating category and 7 in the 

large hard chromium electroplating 

category. For these categories, because 

the average sales receipts used for the 

analysis may understate sales for some 

facilities and because these facilities are 

likely to be able to pass cost increases 

through to their customers, we do not 

anticipate the regulatory proposal to 

result in firm closures, significant price 

increases, or substantial profit loss. We 

conclude that this proposal will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

More information and details of this 

analysis are provided in the technical 

document ‘‘Economic Impact Analysis 

for Risk and Technology Review: 

Chromium Electroplating,’’ which is 

available in the docket for this proposed 

rule. 

2. Steel Pickling 

Because only one of the 

approximately 100 facilities incurs any 

cost for controls and that cost is 

estimated to be less than 1 percent of 

sales, no significant price or 

productivity impacts are anticipated. 

E. What are the benefits? 

1. Chromium Electroplating and 

Chromium Anodizing 

The estimated reductions in 

chromium emissions that will be 

achieved by this proposed rule will 

provide benefits to public health. The 

proposed limits will result in significant 

reductions in the actual and allowable 

emissions of hexavalent chromium 

therefore will reduce the actual and 

potential cancer risks due to emissions 

of chromium from this source category. 

2. Steel Pickling 

The estimated reductions in hydrogen 

chloride and chlorine emissions that 

will result from this proposed action 

will provide benefits to public health. 

The proposed limits will result in 

reductions in the potential for 

noncancer health effects due to 

emissions of these HAP. 

VIII. Request for Comments 

We are soliciting comments on all 

aspects of this proposed action. All 

comments received during the comment 

period will be considered. In EPA’s 

strive to continue to promote 

sustainability in our protection of 

human health and the environment, we 

request comment on sustainability 

related to the types of fume 

suppressants and surfactants, depending 

on their chemical properties, which may 

have more or less potential for negative 

health and environmental impacts 

beyond the air emissions addressed by 

this supplemental proposal. In addition 

to general comments on this proposed 

action, we are also soliciting additional 

information and data (e.g., on emissions, 

emissions concentrations results from 

stack emissions tests, flow rates, facility 

parameters, facility types, controls, test 

reports, etc.) that may help to reduce the 

uncertainties inherent in the risk 

assessments and any additional data 

that would inform the other analyses 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6652 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

described in this preamble (such as the 

analyses of the costs and reductions that 

would result from the proposed 

requirements). Because our current data 

set includes test results for only one 

chromium anodizing tank, we 

specifically request additional 

performance test data for chromium 

anodizing sources, including emissions 

concentration, exhaust flow rates, 

rectifier output, and control device type. 

Finally, we are requesting additional 

information on the costs and feasibility 

of using WAFS that do not contain 

PFOS to meet the proposed surface 

tension limits. Such data should include 

supporting documentation in sufficient 

detail to allow characterization of the 

quality and representativeness of the 

data or information. We are not reopening the public comment period for 

the actions proposed in the October 21, 

2010 notice. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

significant regulatory action because it 

raises novel legal and policy issues. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011) and any changes made 

in response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this rule have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq. 

We are not proposing any new 

paperwork requirements to the Steel 

Pickling—HCl Process Facilities and 

Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants 

MACT standards. Revisions and burden 

associated with amendments to the 

Hard and Decorative Chromium 

Electroplating and Chromium 

Anodizing Tanks are discussed in the 

following paragraphs. The OMB has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulation being amended with 

this proposed rule (i.e., 40 CFR part 63, 

subparts N and CCC) under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The OMB 

control numbers for EPA’s regulations 

in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

The ICR document prepared by EPA 

for the amendments to the Hard and 

Decorative Chromium Electroplating 

and Chromium Anodizing Tanks 

NESHAP has been assigned EPA ICR 

number 1611.08. Burden changes 

associated with these amendments 

would result from the emission testing 

requirements and compliance 

demonstrations being proposed with 

today’s action. The estimated average 

burden per response is 9 hours; the 

frequency of response is one-time for all 

respondents that must comply with the 

rule’s reporting requirements and the 

estimated average number of likely 

respondents per year is 485. The cost 

burden to respondents resulting from 

the collection of information includes 

the total capital cost annualized over the 

equipment’s expected useful life 

($100,958), a total operation and 

maintenance component ($0 per year), 

and a labor cost component (about 

$152,116 per year). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a public docket for this rule, which 

includes these ICR, under Docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0600. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 

days after February 8, 2012, a comment 

to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it by March 9, 

2012. The final rule will respond to any 

OMB or public comments on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s proposed rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business that is a small industrial 

entity as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impact of this supplemental proposed 

rule on small entities, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This proposed 

rule would impose more stringent 

emissions limits and lower surface 

tension requirements. These new 

proposed requirements and restrictions 

to the hard and decorative chromium 

electroplating and chromium anodizing 

tanks MACT standard will impact small 

entities, but those impacts have been 

estimated to be nominal. The proposed 

emissions limits reflect the level of 

performance currently being achieved 

by most facilities, and many facilities 

currently have emissions that are far 

below the proposed limits. With regard 

to the remaining facilities (those that 

will need to achieve emissions 

reductions), most of these facilities can 

achieve the proposed limits at low costs 

(e.g., by using additional fume 

suppressants). 

The EPA’s analysis estimated that 96 

percent of the affected entities will have 

an annualized cost of less than 1 percent 

of sales. In addition, approximately 1 

percent of affected entities, or 9 

facilities with fewer than 20 employees, 

may have cost-to-sales ratios between 3 

to 8 percent. All of these facilities are in 

the hard chromium electroplating 

category, with 2 of the facilities in the 

small hard chromium electroplating 

category and 7 in the large hard 

chromium electroplating category. 

Since our analysis indicates that a 

small subset of facilities (about 1 

percent) may have cost-to-sales ratios 

greater than 3 percent, we have 

conducted additional economic impact 

analyses on this small subset of facilities 

to better understand the potential 

economic impacts for these facilities. 

The additional analyses indicate the 

estimates of costs-to-sales ratios in the 

initial analyses are more likely to be 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6653 

overstated rather than understated 

because the additional analyses indicate 

that sales are typically higher for these 

sources than the average value used in 

the initial analysis. 

Moreover, because of the nature of the 

market, these facilities are likely to be 

able to pass cost increases through to 

their customers. As such, we do not 

anticipate the proposal to result in firm 

closures, or substantial profit loss. More 

information and details of this analysis 

are provided in the technical document 

‘‘Economic Impact Analysis for Risk and 

Technology Review: Chromium 

Electroplating,’’ which is available in 

the docket for this proposed rule. 

Although this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small entities. We 

continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a Federal mandate under the provisions 

of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538 for state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

proposed rule would not result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in aggregate, or the private sector in any 

1 year. The proposed rule imposes no 

enforceable duties on any State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

Thus, this proposed rule is not subject 

to the requirements of sections 202 or 

205 of the UMRA. 

This proposed rule is also not subject 

to the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

action contains no requirements that 

apply to such governments nor does it 

impose obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. None of the 

facilities subject to this action are 

owned or operated by State 

governments, and, because no new 

requirements are being promulgated, 

nothing in this proposal will supersede 

State regulations. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this proposed 

rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule will not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). It will not have 

substantial direct effect on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes, 

as specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. This 

action would not relax the control 

measures on existing regulated sources. 

Nevertheless, this proposed action 

would result in reductions in cancer 

risks due to chromium emissions for 

people of all ages, including children. 

The EPA’s risk assessments (included in 

the docket for this proposed rule) 

demonstrate that these regulations, with 

the amendments being proposed in 

today’s action, will be health protective. 

The public is invited to submit 

comments or identify peer-reviewed 

studies and data that assess effects of 

early life exposure to hexavalent 

chromium. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined under 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 

(May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely 

to have significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

This action will not create any new 

requirements for sources in the energy 

supply, distribution, or use sectors. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it maintains or increases the 

level of environmental protection for all 

affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority low-income, or indigenous 

populations. Further, the EPA is 

proposing that, after implementation of 

the provisions of this rule, the public 

health of all demographic groups will be 

protected with an ample margin of 

safety. 

To examine the potential for any 

environmental justice issues that might 

be associated with two of the source 

categories associated with today’s 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6654 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

proposed rule (Hard Chromium 

Electroplaters and Decorative 

Chromium Electroplaters), we evaluated 

the percentages of various social, 

demographic, and economic groups 

within the at-risk populations living 

near the facilities where these source 

categories are located and compared 

them to national averages. We did not 

conduct this type of analysis for the 

chromic acid anodizing or steel pickling 

categories because the numbers of 

people subjected to cancer risks greater 

than 1-in-1 million due to HAP 

emissions from these source categories 

were quite low. The development of 

demographic analyses to inform the 

consideration of environmental justice 

issues in EPA rulemakings is an 

evolving process. The EPA offers the 

demographic analyses in this 

rulemaking as examples of how such 

analyses might be developed to inform 

such consideration, and invites public 

comment on the approaches used and 

the interpretations made from the 

results, with the hope that this will 

support the refinement and improve 

utility of such analyses for future 

rulemakings. 

Our analysis of the demographics of 

the population with estimated risks 

greater than 1-in-1 million indicates 

potential disparities in risks between 

demographic groups, including the 

African American, Other and 

Multiracial, Hispanic, Below the 

Poverty Level, and the Over 25 without 

a High School Diploma groups. These 

groups stand to benefit the most from 

the emission reductions achieved by 

this proposed rulemaking. 

EPA defines ‘‘Environmental Justice’’ 

to include meaningful involvement of 

all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. To promote 

meaningful involvement, after the rule 

is proposed, EPA will be conducting a 

webinar to inform the public about the 

rule and to outline how to submit 

written comments to the docket. Further 

stakeholder and public input is 

expected through public comment and 

follow-up meetings with interested 

stakeholders. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: January 27, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

Subpart N—[Amended] 

2. Section 63.341 is amended by 

adding, in alphabetical order in 

paragraph (a), definitions for existing 

affected source and new affected source. 

§ 63.341 Definitions and nomenclature. 

(a) * * * 

Existing affected source means an 

affected hard chromium electroplating 

tank, decorative chromium 

electroplating tank, or chromium 

anodizing tank, the construction or 

reconstruction of which commenced on 

or before February 8, 2012. 

* * * * * 

New affected source means an 

affected hard chromium electroplating 

tank, decorative chromium 

electroplating tank, or chromium 

anodizing tank, the construction or 

reconstruction of which commenced 

after February 8, 2012. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 63.342 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i), 

(c)(1)(ii), and (c)(1)(iii); 

b. Adding paragraph (c)(1)(iv); 

c. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i), 

(c)(2)(ii), and (c)(2)(iii); 

d. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(vi); 

e. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and 

(d)(2); and 

f. Adding paragraph (d)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.342 Standards. 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) * * * 

(i) Not allowing the concentration of 

total chromium in the exhaust gas 

stream discharged to the atmosphere to 

exceed 0.011 milligrams of total 

chromium per dry standard cubic meter 

(mg/dscm) of ventilation air (4.8 × 10¥6

grains per dry standard cubic foot 

(gr/dscf)) for all open surface hard 

chromium electroplating tanks that are 

existing affected sources and are located 

at large hard chromium electroplating 

facilities; or 

(ii) Not allowing the concentration of 

total chromium in the exhaust gas 

stream discharged to the atmosphere to 

exceed 0.015 mg/dscm (6.6 × 10¥6

gr/dscf) for all open surface hard 

chromium electroplating tanks that are 

existing affected sources and are located 

at small, hard chromium electroplating 

facilities; or 

(iii) If a chemical fume suppressant 

containing a wetting agent is used, not 

allowing the surface tension of the 

electroplating or anodizing bath 

contained within the affected tank to 

exceed 40 dynes per centimeter (dynes/ 

cm) (2.8 × 10¥3 pound-force per foot 

(lbf/ft)), as measured by a 

stalagmometer, or 33 dynes/cm (2.3 × 

10¥3 lbf/ft), as measured by a 

tensiometer at any time during tank 

operation; or 

(iv) Not allowing the concentration of 

total chromium in the exhaust gas 

stream discharged to the atmosphere to 

exceed 0.006 mg/dscm of ventilation air 

(2.6 × 10¥6 gr/dscf) for all open surface 

hard chromium electroplating tanks that 

are new affected sources. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Not allowing the concentration of 

total chromium in the exhaust gas 

stream discharged to the atmosphere to 

exceed 0.011 mg/dscm of ventilation air 

(4.8 × 10¥6 gr/dscf) for all enclosed hard 

chromium electroplating tanks that are 

existing affected sources and are located 

at large hard chromium electroplating 

facilities; or 

(ii) Not allowing the concentration of 

total chromium in the exhaust gas 

stream discharged to the atmosphere to 

exceed 0.015 mg/dscm (6.6 × 10¥6

gr/dscf) for all enclosed hard chromium 

electroplating tanks that are existing 

affected sources and are located at 

small, hard chromium electroplating 

facilities; or 

(iii) If a chemical fume suppressant 

containing a wetting agent is used, not 

allowing the surface tension of the 

electroplating or anodizing bath 

contained within the affected tank to 

exceed 40 dynes/cm (2.8 × 10¥3 lbf/ft), 

as measured by a stalagmometer, or 33 

dynes/cm (2.3 × 10¥3 lbf/ft), as 

measured by a tensiometer at any time 

during tank operation; or 

* * * * * 

(vi) Not allowing the concentration of 

total chromium in the exhaust gas 

stream discharged to the atmosphere to 

exceed 0.006 mg/dscm of ventilation air 

(2.6 × 10¥6 gr/dscf) for all enclosed hard 

chromium electroplating tanks that are 

new affected sources. 

* * * * * 

(d) Standards for decorative 

chromium electroplating tanks using a 

chromic acid bath and chromium 

anodizing tanks. During tank operation, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6655 

each owner or operator of an existing, 

new, or reconstructed affected source 

shall control chromium emissions 

discharged to the atmosphere from that 

affected source by either: 

(1) Not allowing the concentration of 

total chromium in the exhaust gas 

stream discharged to the atmosphere to 

exceed 0.007 mg/dscm (3.1 × 10¥6

gr/dscf) for all existing decorative 

chromium electroplating tanks using a 

chromic acid bath and all existing 

chromium anodizing tanks; or 

(2) Not allowing the concentration of 

total chromium in the exhaust gas 

stream discharged to the atmosphere to 

exceed 0.006 mg/dscm (2.6 × 10¥6 gr/ 

dscf) for all new or reconstructed 

decorative chromium electroplating 

tanks using a chromic acid bath and all 

new or reconstructed chromium 

anodizing tanks; 

(3) If a chemical fume suppressant 

containing a wetting agent is used, not 

allowing the surface tension of the 

electroplating or anodizing bath 

contained within the affected tank to 

exceed 40 dynes/cm (2.8 × 10¥3 lbf/ft), 

as measured by a stalagmometer or 33 

dynes/cm (2.3 × 10¥3 lbf/ft), as 

measured by a tensiometer at any time 

during tank operation, for all existing, 

new, or reconstructed decorative 

chromium electroplating tanks using a 

chromic acid bath and all existing, new, 

or reconstructed chromium anodizing 

tanks. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 63.343 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), 

and (a)(4); 

b. Revising paragraph (b)(1); and 

c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii), 

(c)(2)(ii), (c)(4)(ii), (c)(5)(i), (c)(5)(ii), and 

(c)(6)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 63.343 Compliance provisions. 

(a)(1) The owner or operator of an 

existing affected source shall comply 

with the emission limitations in 

§ 63.342 no later than [DATE 2 YEARS 

AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 

IN Federal Register]. 

(2) The owner or operator of a new or 

reconstructed affected source that has 

an initial startup after [DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 

THE Federal Register], shall comply 

immediately upon startup of the source. 

* * * * * 

(4) The owner or operator of a new 

area source (i.e., an area source for 

which construction or reconstruction 

was commenced after February 8, 2012) 

that increases actual or potential 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

such that the area source becomes a 

major source must comply with the 

provisions for new major sources, 

immediately upon becoming a major 

source. 

* * * * * 

(b) Methods to demonstrate initial 

compliance. (1) Except as provided in 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this 

section, an owner or operator of an 

affected source subject to the 

requirements of this subpart is required 

to conduct an initial performance test as 

required under § 63.7, using the 

procedures and test methods listed in 

§§ 63.7 and 63.344. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) On and after the date on which the 

initial performance test is required to be 

completed under § 63.7, the owner or 

operator of an affected source, or group 

of affected sources under common 

control, shall monitor and record the 

pressure drop across the composite 

mesh-pad system once each day that 

any affected source is operating. To be 

in compliance with the standards, the 

composite mesh-pad system shall be 

operated within ±2 inches of water 

column of the pressure drop value 

established during the initial 

performance test, or shall be operated 

within the range of compliant values for 

pressure drop established during 

multiple performance tests. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) On and after the date on which the 

initial performance test is required to be 

completed under § 63.7, the owner or 

operator of an affected source, or group 

of affected sources under common 

control, shall monitor and record the 

velocity pressure at the inlet to the 

packed-bed system and the pressure 

drop across the scrubber system once 

each day that any affected source is 

operating. To be in compliance with the 

standards, the scrubber system shall be 

operated within ±10 percent of the 

velocity pressure value established 

during the initial performance test, and 

within ±1 inch of water column of the 

pressure drop value established during 

the initial performance test, or within 

the range of compliant operating 

parameter values established during 

multiple performance tests. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) On and after the date on which the 

initial performance test is required to be 

completed under § 63.7, the owner or 

operator of an affected source, or group 

of affected sources under common 

control, shall monitor and record the 

pressure drop across the fiber-bed mist 

eliminator, and the control device 

installed upstream of the fiber bed to 

prevent plugging, once each day that 

any affected source is operating. To be 

in compliance with the standards, the 

fiber-bed mist eliminator and the 

upstream control device shall be 

operated within ±1 inch of water 

column of the pressure drop value 

established during the initial 

performance test, or shall be operated 

within the range of compliant values for 

pressure drop established during 

multiple performance tests. 

* * * * * 

(5) Wetting agent-type or combination 

wetting agent-type/foam blanket fume 

suppressants. (i) During the initial 

performance test, the owner or operator 

of an affected source complying with 

the emission limitations in § 63.342 

through the use of a wetting agent in the 

electroplating or anodizing bath shall 

determine the outlet chromium 

concentration using the procedures in 

§ 63.344(c). The owner or operator shall 

establish as the site-specific operating 

parameter the surface tension of the 

bath using Method 306B, appendix A of 

this part, setting the maximum value 

that corresponds to compliance with the 

applicable emission limitation. In lieu 

of establishing the maximum surface 

tension during the performance test, the 

owner or operator may accept 40 dynes/ 

cm, as measured by a stalagmometer, or 

33 dynes/cm, as measured by a 

tensiometer, as the maximum surface 

tension value that corresponds to 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limitation. However, the 

owner or operator is exempt from 

conducting a performance test only if 

the criteria of paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section are met. 

(ii) On and after the date on which the 

initial performance test is required to be 

completed under § 63.7, the owner or 

operator of an affected source shall 

monitor the surface tension of the 

electroplating or anodizing bath. 

Operation of the affected source at a 

surface tension greater than the value 

established during the performance test, 

or greater than 40 dynes/cm, as 

measured by a stalagmometer, or 33 

dynes/cm, as measured by a 

tensiometer, if the owner or operator is 

using this value in accordance with 

paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section, shall 

constitute noncompliance with the 

standards. The surface tension shall be 

monitored according to the following 

schedule: 

* * * * * 

(6) * * * 

(ii) On and after the date on which the 

initial performance test is required to be 

completed under § 63.7, the owner or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6656 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

operator of an affected source shall 

monitor the foam blanket thickness of 

the electroplating or anodizing bath. 

Operation of the affected source at a 

foam blanket thickness less than the 

value established during the 

performance test, or less than 2.54 cm 

(1 inch) if the owner or operator is using 

this value in accordance with paragraph 

(c)(6)(i) of this section, shall constitute 

noncompliance with the standards. The 

foam blanket thickness shall be 

measured according to the following 

schedule: 

* * * * * 

5. Section 63.344 is amended by: 

a. Adding paragraphs (b)(1)(v) through 

(b)(1)(viii); and 

b. Deleting paragraph (b)(2); to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.344 Performance test requirements 

and test methods. 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) * * * 

(v) The performance test was 

conducted after January 25, 1995; 

(vi) As of [DATE OF PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL RULE IN Federal Register], 

the source was using the same 

emissions controls that were used 

during the compliance test; and 

(vii) As of [INSERT DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 

Federal Register], the source was 

operating under conditions that are 

representative of the conditions under 

which the source was operating during 

the compliance test; and 

(viii) Based on approval from the 

permitting authority. 

* * * * * 

6. Section 63.347 is amended by 

adding paragraph (f)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.347 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(f)(3)(i) Within 90 days after the date 

of completing each performance test 

(defined in § 63.2) as required by this 

subpart, you must submit the results of 

the performance tests required by this 

subpart to EPA’s WebFIRE database by 

using the Compliance and Emissions 

Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is 

accessed through EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/cdx). 

Performance test data must be submitted 

in the file format generated through use 

of EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool 

(ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ 

ert/index.html). Only data collected 

using test methods on the ERT Web site 

are subject to this requirement for 

submitting reports electronically to 

WebFIRE. Owners or operators who 

claim that some of the information being 

submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI) 

must submit a complete ERT file 

including information claimed to be CBI 

on a compact disk or other commonly 

used electronic storage media 

(including, but not limited to, flash 

drives) to EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and 

mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI 

Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

ERT file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to EPA via CDX as described 

earlier in this paragraph. At the 

discretion of the delegated authority, 

you must also submit these reports, 

including the confidential business 

information, to the delegated authority 

in the format specified by the delegated 

authority. 

(ii) All reports required by this 

subpart not subject to the requirements 

in paragraphs (3)(i) of this section must 

be sent to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 63.13. 

The Administrator or the delegated 

authority may request a report in any 

form suitable for the specific case (e.g., 

by commonly used electronic media 

such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or 

hard copy). The Administrator retains 

the right to require submittal of reports 

subject to paragraph (3)(i) of this section 

in paper format. 

* * * * * 

Subpart CCC—[Amended] 

7. Section 63.1157 is amended by 

revising (b)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1157 Emission standards for existing 

sources. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) In addition to the requirement of 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, no 

owner or operator of an existing plant 

shall cause or allow to be discharged 

into the atmosphere from the affected 

plant any gases that contain chlorine 

(Cl2) in a concentration in excess of 6 

ppmv. 

* * * * * 

§ 63.1161 [Amended] 

8. Section 63.1161 is amended by 

deleting paragraph (c)(2). 

9. Section 63.1164 is amended by 

revising (a) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1164 Reporting requirements. 

(a) Reporting results of performance 

tests. As required by § 63.10(d)(2) of 

subpart A of this part, the owner or 

operator of an affected source shall 

report the results of any performance 

test required by this paragraph to EPA’s 

WebFIRE database by using the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is 

accessed through EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/cdx). 

Performance test data shall be submitted 

in the file format generated through use 

of EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool 

(ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ 

ert/index.html). Only data collected 

using test methods listed on the ERT 

Web site are subject to this requirement 

for submitting reports electronically to 

WebFIRE. Owners or operators who 

claim that some of the performance test 

information being submitted is 

confidential business information (CBI) 

shall submit a complete ERT file 

including information claimed to be CBI 

on a compact disk or other commonly 

used electronic storage media 

(including, but not limited to, flash 

drives) by registered letter to EPA and 

the same ERT file with the CBI omitted 

to EPA via CDX as described earlier in 

this paragraph. The compact disk shall 

be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to 

U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, 

Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD 

C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, 

NC 27703. At the discretion of the 

delegated authority, owners or operators 

shall also submit these reports to the 

delegated authority in the format 

specified by the delegated authority. 

* * * * * 

Appendix A—[Amended] 

10. Appendix A to part 63, Method 

306–B is amended revising paragraph 

11.2.1.3 to read as follows: 

METHOD 306B—SURFACE TENSION 

MEASUREMENT FOR TANKS USED AT 

CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING AND 

CHROMIUM ANODIZING FACILITIES 

* * * * * 

11.0 Analytical Procedure 

* * * * * 

11.2.1.3 If a measurement of the surface 

tension of the solution is above the 40 dynes 

per centimeter limit, as measured using a 

stalagmometer, or above the 33 dynes per 

centimeter limit, as measured using a 

tensiometer, or above an alternate surface 

tension limit established during the 

performance test, the time interval shall 

revert back to the original monitoring 

schedule of once every 4 hours. A subsequent 

decrease in frequency would then be allowed 

according to Section 11.2.1. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–2434 Filed 2–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2