4948 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 63

[AD–FRL–5115–7]

RIN 2060–AC14

National Emission Standards for

Chromium Emissions From Hard and

Decorative Chromium Electroplating

and Chromium Anodizing Tanks

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 112 of the

Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the

Act), this action promulgates final

standards that limit the discharge of

chromium compound air emissions

from existing and new hard chromium

electroplating, decorative chromium

electroplating, and chromium anodizing

tanks at major and area sources.

Chromium compounds are among the

189 hazardous air pollutants (HAP)

listed for regulation under section 112

of the Act. Hard and decorative

chromium electroplating and chromium

anodizing tanks have been identified by

the EPA as significant emitters of

chromium compounds to the

atmosphere. The purpose of the final

rule is to reduce chromium compound

air emissions from the source categories

identified above. All affected sources

must limit emissions to the level of the

maximum achievable control

technology (MACT). The EPA is also

finalizing Methods 306, 306A, and 306B

with these standards.

DATES: Effective Date: January 25, 1995.

Incorporation by Reference. The

incorporation by reference of certain

publications in this standard is

approved by the Director of the Office

of the Federal Register as of January 25,

1995.

Judicial Review. Under section

307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of

national emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) is

available only by filing a petition for

review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit within

60 days of today’s publication of this

final rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the

Act, the requirements that are the

subject of today’s notice may not be

challenged later in civil or criminal

proceedings brought by the EPA to

enforce these requirements.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A–88–

02, containing information considered

by the EPA in developing the

promulgated NESHAP for hard and

decorative chromium electroplating and

chromium anodizing tanks is available

for public inspection and copying

between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except for Federal

holidays, at the EPA’s Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center, Room

M1500, U. S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20460; telephone (202) 260–7548. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

Background Information Document. A

background information document (BID)

for the promulgated NESHAP may be

obtained from the docket; the U. S. EPA

Library (MD–35), Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone

(919) 541–2777; or from National

Technical Information Services, 5285

Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia

22161, telephone (703) 487–4650. Please

refer to ‘‘Chromium Emissions from

Chromium Electroplating and Chromic

Acid Anodizing Operations—

Background Information for

Promulgated Standards’’ (EPA–453/R–

94–082b). The BID contains a summary

of the public comments made on the

proposed standards and EPA responses

to the comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Lalit Banker of the Emission Standards

Division (MD–13), U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone

(919) 541–5420.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

information presented in this preamble

is organized as follows:

I. Background

II. Summary

A. Summary of Promulgated Standards

B. Summary of Major Changes Since

Proposal

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost,

and Economic Impacts

A. Environmental and Energy Impacts

B. Cost Impacts

C. Economic Impacts

IV. Public Participation

V. Significant Comments and Responses

A. Selection of Source Categories and

Pollutants to be Regulated

B. Selection of MACT/GACT Approach

C. Selection of MACT for Hard Chromium

Electroplating Tanks

D. Selection of MACT for Decorative

Chromium Electroplating and Chromium

Anodizing Tanks

E. Selection of the Format of the Standard

F. Selection of the Emission Limits

G. Selection of Compliance Dates

H. Selection of Monitoring Requirements

I. Selection of Test Methods

J. Selection of Reporting and

Recordkeeping Requirements

K. Operating Permit Program

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Executive Order 12866

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

E. Miscellaneous

I. Background

Section 112(b) of the Act lists 189

HAP and requires the EPA to establish

national emission standards for all

major sources and some area sources of

those HAP. Among the listed pollutants

are chromium compounds. On July 16,

1992 (57 FR 31576), the EPA published

a list of major and area sources for

which NESHAP are to be promulgated

and on December 3, 1993 (58 FR 83941),

the EPA published a schedule for

promulgation of those standards. The

hard and decorative chromium

electroplating and chromium anodizing

source categories are included in the list

of major and area sources for which the

EPA is to establish national emission

standards by November 1994.

This NESHAP was proposed in the

Federal Register on December 16, 1993

(58 FR 65768). A public hearing on this

rule was conducted on January 20, 1994.

In addition, 62 letters commenting on

the proposed rule were received during

the public comment period, and 3 late

comments were received.

II. Summary

A. Summary of Promulgated Standards

The final rule applies to major and

area sources performing hard chromium

electroplating, decorative chromium

electroplating, and chromium

anodizing. The affected source is each

chromium electroplating or chromium

anodizing tank. The emission

limitations for each of these source

categories are summarized in Table 1.

These emission limitations apply only

during tank operation, including

periods of startup and shutdown. The

emission limitation for all new hard

chromium electroplating tanks, and for

existing hard chromium electroplating

tanks that are located at large, hard

chromium electroplating facilities is

based on the use of a composite meshpad system. The emission limitation for

existing hard chromium electroplating

tanks located at small, hard chromium

electroplating facilities is based on the

use of a packed-bed scrubber. For all

existing and new sources performing

decorative chromium electroplating and

all existing and new sources performing

chromium anodizing, the standard is

based on the use of fume suppressants.

Even though these technologies formed

the bases for the standards, any

technology can be used as long as it is

demonstrated to meet the prescribed

emission limitation. All area and major

sources must limit emissions to the

level of the maximum achievable

control technology (MACT).
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4949

TABLE 1.—STANDARDS FOR CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING AND CHROMIUM ANODIZING TANKS BASED ON MACT

Type of tank

Emission limitations

Small Large

Hard Chromium Plating Tanks

All existing tanks ................................... 0.03 mg/dcsm (1.3×10¥5 gr/dscf) .......................... 0.015 mg/dscm (6.6×10¥6 gr/dscf)

All new tanks ......................................... 0.015 mg/dcsm (6.6×10¥6 gr/dscf) ........................ 0.015 mg/dscm (6.6×10¥6 gr/dscf)

Decorative Chromium Plating Tanks Using a Chromic Acid Bath

All new and existing tanks .................... 0.01 mg/dscm a(4.4×10¥6 gr/dscf)

Chromium Anodizing Tanks

All new and existing tanks .................... 0.01 mg/dscm a(4.4×10¥6 gr/dscf)

a In accordance with § 63.342(d)(2), owners or operators using a fume suppressant containing a wetting agent as a control technique can meet

an alternate emission limitation of 45 dynes/cm (3.1×10¥3 lbf/ft).

Owners and operators of all affected sources are also subject to work practice standards, which require them to

complete an operation and maintenance (O&M) plan that contains the minimum elements of § 63.342(f)(3) and Table

2.

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS

Control technique Work practice standards Frequency

Composite mesh-pad (CMP) system.1. Visually inspect device to ensure there is proper drainage, no chromic acid buildup on the pads, and no evidence of chemical attack

on the structural integrity of the device.

1. 1/quarter.

2. Visually inspect back portion of the mesh pad closet to the fan to

ensure there is no breakthrough of chromic acid mist.

2. 1/quarter.

3. Visually inspect ductwork from tank or tanks to the control device

to ensure there are no leaks.

3. 1/quarter.

4. Perform washdown of the composite mesh-pads in accordance

with manufacturers recommendations.

4. Per manufacturer.

Packed-bed scrubber (PBS) .......... 1. Visually inspect device to ensure there is proper drainage, no chromic acid buildup on the packed beds, and no evidence of chemical

attack on the structural integrity of the device.

1. 1/quarter.

2. Visually inspect back portion of the chevron blade mist eliminator

to ensure that it is dry and there is no breakthrough of chromic acid

mist.

2. 1/quarter.

3. Same as number 3 above ................................................................. 3. 1/quarter.

4. Add fresh makeup water to the top of the packed bed a,b ................ 4. Whenever makeup is added.

PBS/CMP system ........................... 1. Same as for CMP system ................................................................. 1. 1/quarter.

2. Same as for CMP system ................................................................. 2. 1/quarter.

3. Same as for CMP system ................................................................. 3. 1/quarter.

4. Same as for CMP system ................................................................. 4. Per manufacturer.

Fiber-bed mist eliminator c .............. 1. Visually inspect fiber-bed unit and prefiltering device to ensure

there is proper drainage, no chromic acid buildup in the units, and

no evidence of chemical attack on the structural integrity of the devices.

1. 1/quarter.

2. Visually inspect ductwork from tank or tanks to the control device

to ensure there are no leaks.

2. 1/quarter.

3. Perform washdown of fiber elements in accordance with manufacturers recommendations.3. Per manufacturer.

Air pollution control device (APCD)

not listed in rule.

To be proposed by the source for approval by the Administrator ........ To be proposed by the source for

approval by the Administrator.

Monitoring Equipment

Pitot tube ........................................ Backflush with water, or remove from the duct and rinse with fresh

water. Replace in the duct and rotate 180 degrees to ensure that

the same zero reading is obtained. Check pitot tube ends for damage. Replace pitot tube if cracked or fatigued.

1/quarter.

Stalagmometer ............................... Follow manufacturers recommendations.

a If greater than 50 percent of the scrubber water is drained (e.g., for maintenance purposes), makeup water may be added to the scrubber

basin. bFor horizontal-flow scrubbers, top is defined as the section of the unit directly above the packing media such that the makeup water would

flow perpendicular to the air flow through the packing. For vertical-flow units, the top is defined as the area downstream of the packing material

such that the makeup water would flow countercurrent to the air flow through the unit. cWork practice standards for the control device installed upstream of the fiber-bed mist eliminator to prevent plugging do not apply as long as

the work practice standards for the fiber-bed unit are followed.
4950 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

All existing sources performing hard

chromium electroplating and chromium

anodizing must comply with the

emission limitations within 2 years of

January 25, 1995. All existing sources

performing decorative chromium

electroplating must comply with the

emission limitations within 1 year of

January 25, 1995. All new and

reconstructed sources must comply

immediately upon startup.

Sources must demonstrate initial

compliance with the prescribed

emission limitation in accordance with

§§ 63.343(b) and 63.344. Continuous

compliance is demonstrated through the

monitoring required by § 64.343(c), as

summarized in Table 3. As indicated in

this table, the type of compliance

monitoring performed is based on the

type of control technique used to

comply with the emission limitation,

not the type of source being controlled.

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Control

technique Initial compliance test Parameter(s) for compliance monitoring Frequency of compliance monitoring

Composite mesh-pad (CMP)

system.

Yes ....................................... Pressure drop across the unit ............................................ 1/day.

Packed-bed scrubber (PSB) Yes ....................................... Velocity pressure at the inlet of the control system and

pressure drop across the unit.

1/day.

PBS/CMP system ................ Yes ....................................... Pressure drop across the unit ............................................ 1/day

Fiber-bed mist eliminator ..... Yes ....................................... Pressure drop across the fiber-bed mist eliminator and

the pressure drop across the upstream control device

used to prevent plugging.

1/day.

Wetting agent-type fume

suppressant.

Yes (Unless the criteria of

§ 63.343(b)(2) are met).

Surface tension .................................................................. Once every 4 hours.a

Foam blankets ..................... Yes ....................................... Foam thickness .................................................................. Once per hour.a

Air pollution control device

(APCD) not listed in rule.

Yes ....................................... To be proposed by the source for approval by Administrator.N/A.

aFrequency can be decreased according to § 63.343 (c)(5)(ii) and (c)(6)(ii) of subpart N.

Owners or operators of affected

sources are required to keep the records

required by § 63.346 to document

compliance with these standards.

Records include those associated with

the work practice standards,

performance test results, compliance

monitoring data, duration of

exceedances, and records to support a

Federally-enforceable limit on facility

size. Reports must also be periodically

submitted. Table 4 summarizes the

reports to be submitted and the

reporting timeframes.

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Section in

Subpart N Description Timeframe for submittal

§ 63.345(b) .......... Notification of construction or reconstruction .......................... Depends on when source was constructed—see

§ 63.345(b)(5).

§ 63.347(c)(1) ...... Initial notification ...................................................................... 180 days after the effective date.

§ 63.347(c)(2) ...... —Notification of when construction commenced .................... —Within 30 days of commencement for sources built after

effective date, or with notification required by § 63.345(b) if

built prior to effective date.

—Notification of actual startup ................................................ —Within 30 days of startup.

§ 63.347(d) .......... Notification of performance test .............................................. At least 60 days prior to test.

§ 63.347(e) .......... Notification of compliance status ............................................. Within 90 days of performance test (if a test is conducted) or

within 30 days of compliance date.

§ 63.347(f) ........... Notification of performance test results ................................... Within 90 days of performance test.

§ 63.347(g) .......... Compliance status reports for major sources ......................... 2 times/yr, or 4 times/yr if exceedances occur or if requested

by Administrator.

§ 63.347(h) .......... Compliance status reports for area sources ........................... Complete once/yr and maintain on site, or 2 times/yr if

exceedances occur or if requested by Administrator.

§ 63.347(i) ........... —Initial notification for users of TVC baths ............................ —Within 180 days of effective date.

—Notification of compliance status for users of TVC baths ... —Within 30 days of compliance date.

—Notification of process change ............................................ —Within 30 days of process change.

B. Summary of Major Changes Since

Proposal

In response to public comments

received and additional analyses

performed by the EPA, the following

changes have been made to the final

rule since proposal:

1. The emission limits associated with

the control technologies that form the

bases for the standards have been

revised. The emission limit based on the

use of a composite mesh-pad system is

0.015 milligrams of total chromium per

dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) of

exhaust air. The emission limit based on

the use of a fume suppressant is 0.01

mg/dscm. The emission limit based on

the use of a packed-bed scrubber is

unchanged (0.03 mg/dscm).
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4951

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Control technique Initial compliance test Parameter(s) for compliance monitoring Frequency of compliance monitoring

Composite mesh-pad (CMP)

system.

Yes ...................................... Pressure drop across the unit ........................................... 1/day.

Packed-bed scrubber (PBS) Yes ...................................... Velocity pressure at the inlet of the control system and

pressure drop across the unit.

1/day.

PBS/CMP system ................. Yes ...................................... Pressure drop across the unit ........................................... 1/day.

Fiber-bed mist eliminator ...... Yes ...................................... Pressure drop across the fiber-bed mist eliminator and

the pressure drop across the upstream control device

used to prevent plugging.

1/day.

Wetting agent-type fume

suppressant.

Yes (Unless the criteria of

§ 63.343(b)(2) are met).

Surface tension ................................................................. Once every 4 hours.a

Foam blankets ...................... Yes ...................................... Foam thickness ................................................................. Once per hour.a

Air pollution control device

(APCD) not listed in rule.

Yes ...................................... To be proposed by the source for approval by Administrator.N/A

aFrequency can be decreased according to § 63.343 (c)(5)(ii) and (c)(6)(ii) of subpart N.

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Section in

subpart N Description Timeframe for submittal

§ 63.345(b) ...................... Notification of construction or reconstruction .......... Depends on when source was constructed—see § 63.345(b)(5).

§ 63.347(c)(1) .................. Initial notification ...................................................... 180 days after the effective date.

§ 63.347(c)(2) .................. —Notification of when construction commenced .... —Within 30 days of commencement for sources built after effective date, or with notification required by § 63.345(b) if

built prior to effective date.

—Notification of actual startup ................................ —Within 30 days of startup.

§ 63.347(d) ...................... Notification of performance test .............................. At least 60 days prior to test.

§ 63.347(e) ...................... Notification of compliance status ............................ Within 90 days of performance test (if a test is conducted) or

within 30 days of compliance date.

§ 63.347(f) ....................... Notification of performance test results .................. Within 90 days of performance test.

§ 63.347(g) ...................... Compliance status reports for major sources ......... 2 times/yr, or 4 times/yr if exceedances occur or if requested

by Administrator.

§ 63.347(h) ...................... Compliance status reports for area sources ........... Complete once/yr and maintain on site, or 2 times/yr if

exceedances occur or if requested by Administrator.

§ 63.347(i) ....................... —Initial notification for users of TVC baths ............ —Within 180 days of effective date.

—Notification of compliance status for users of

TVC baths.

—Within 30 days of compliance date.

—Notification of process change ............................ —Within 30 days of process change.

2. Owners or operators of decorative

chromium electroplating tanks using a

trivalent chromium process that

incorporates a wetting agent are

required only to submit the notifications

required by § 63.347(i) with subsequent

notifications required if the process is

changed or replaced.

3. Existing sources performing hard

chromium electroplating and chromium

anodizing must comply with the

standard within 2 years after January 25,

1995. Existing sources performing

decorative chromium electroplating

must comply with the standard within

1 year after January 25, 1995.

4. The monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping requirements for affected

sources have been reduced to the extent

possible while still allowing the EPA to

determine the compliance status on a

continuous basis. Special consideration

has been given to area sources.

5. Table 1 of subpart N clarifies which

sections of the General Provisions apply

to sources subject to subpart N and

which sections do not.

The rationale for the above changes is

discussed in detail in section V of this

preamble, which summarizes the major

comments received on the proposed

rule and the EPA’s response to these

comments. This section also discusses

major comments that were received but

that did not result in changes to the

final rule.

III. Summary of Environmental,

Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts

A. Environmental and Energy Impacts

The environmental and energy

impacts for the sources covered by this

rulemaking are unchanged from

proposal because the bases of the MACT

standards have not changed.

B. Cost Impacts

The annualized cost of control for the

sources covered by this rulemaking

remain unchanged from proposal

because the bases of the MACT

standards have not changed.

The monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping burden in the final rule

has decreased from the proposed

requirements. Likewise, the costs of

monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping have also decreased. The

on-going, annual cost of the final

monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping is approximately 160,000

hours for hard chromium electroplaters,

29,000 hours for decorative chromium

electroplaters using a trivalent

chromium plating process, 260,000

hours for other decorative chromium

electroplaters, and 70,000 hours for

chromium anodizers. Nationwide

annual costs for these source categories

are $3.5 million for hard chromium

electroplaters, $640,000 for decorative

chromium electroplaters using a

trivalent chromium plating process, $5.8

million for other decorative chromium

electroplaters, and $1.6 million for

chromium anodizers. These numbers
4952 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

are reduced from the nationwide annual

costs associated with monitoring,

reporting, and recordkeeping in the

proposed rule of $8.6 million for hard

chromium electroplaters, $1.6 million

for decorative chromium electroplaters

using a trivalent chromium plating

process, $14 million for other decorative

chromium electroplaters, and $3.8

million for chromium anodizers.

C. Economic Impacts

The economic impacts for the sources

covered by this rulemaking are

unchanged from proposal because the

basis of the MACT standards have not

changed.

IV. Public Participation

Prior to proposal of the chromium

electroplating and anodizing rule,

meetings of the National Air Pollution

Control Techniques Advisory

Committee (NAPCTAC) were held on

January 30 and November 19, 1991.

These meetings were open to the public,

and each attendee was given an

opportunity to comment on the draft

rule.

The proposed rule was published in

the Federal Register on December 16,

1993 (58 FR 65768). The preamble to the

proposal discussed the availability of

the proposal BID (Chromium

Electroplating NESHAP—Background

Information for Proposed Standards

(Volume I: EPA–453/R–93–030a and

Volume II: EPA–453/R–93–030b)),

which describes in detail the regulatory

alternatives considered and the impacts

associated with those alternatives.

Public comments were solicited at the

time of proposal, and copies of the

proposal BID were made available to

interested parties.

The public comment period officially

ended on March 14, 1994. A public

hearing was held on January 20, 1994.

In addition, 62 comment letters were

received during the public comment

period; 3 late comments were also

received. The comments were carefully

considered, and where determined to be

appropriate by the Administrator,

changes were made in the final rule.

V. Significant Comments and Responses

Comments on the proposed rule were

received from industry, environmental

groups, and State and local regulatory

agencies. A detailed discussion of these

comments and responses can be found

in the promulgation BID (see ADDRESSES

section). The summary of comments and

responses in the promulgation BID

serves as the basis for the revisions that

have been made to the rule between

proposal and promulgation.

A. Selection of Source Categories and

Pollutants To Be Regulated

Six commenters said that maximum

cumulative potential rectifier capacity

was an inappropriate parameter for

determining facility size. Sources may

have excess rectifier capacity to handle

atypical applications, for safety

purposes, or for other reasons, but may

routinely operate at a significantly lower

rectifier output. Several commenters

urged the EPA to consider alternatives

to the maximum potential rectifier

capacity specified, such as actual

annual ampere-hour usage, raising the

maximum potential ampere-hour limit

for small sources to 100 million amp-hr/

yr, allowing sources to multiply the

maximum potential rectifier capacity by

0.75 to account for oversizing, or

allowing sources to accept Federallyenforceable limits on their rectifier

capacity that would allow them to be

categorized as ‘‘small’’ facilities.

Although the cutoff between small

and large hard chromium electroplating

facilities has not been changed, the EPA

has included two provisions in the final

rule to allow sources to use actual

rectifier capacity or to limit their

potential rectifier capacity. The first

provision is available to facilities whose

production records show that the

previous annual, actual rectifier

capacity was less than 60 million amphr/yr. Under this provision, hard

chromium electroplating facilities may

determine their size by using actual

cumulative rectifier capacity in lieu of

the maximum potential capacity if

nonresettable, amp-hr meters are used

on affected tanks. The final rule

(§ 63.346(b)(12) and § 63.347(c)(1)(vi))

requires that records of amp-hr usage be

kept.

The final rule also allows all sources

performing hard chromium

electroplating to establish Federallyenforceable limits on their rectifier

capacity to allow facilities to comply

with the standards for small, hard

chromium electroplating tanks, even if

those facilities have potential rectifier

capacities that exceed the 60 million

amp-hr/yr cutoff. A Federallyenforceable limit is obtained through

the title V permit that is required by

§ 63.340(e) of the final rule. Records are

required in accordance with

§ 63.346(b)(12) and § 63.347(c)(1)(viii) to

document that the Federally-enforceable

limit is being maintained.

The final rule has also been clarified

to state that only the rectifiers

associated with hard chromium

electroplating should be used to

determine maximum cumulative

potential rectifier capacity.

Comments were received regarding

other processes conducted by this

source category that were not identified

in the process description. One

commenter pointed out a distinction

among decorative chromium

electroplating processes: Black

chromium and white chromium. The

commenter stated that black chromium

electroplating is more like hard

chromium electroplating in terms of

process parameters, and the commenter

recommended that black chromium

electroplating be subject to the same

requirements as hard chromium

electroplating processes. Other

commenters noted that the proposed

rule did not cover a hard chromium

electroplating method that uses lower

amperage and a longer electroplating

time (less amperage per square foot than

decorative electroplating process) such

that emissions are lower.

In the final rule, the definitions of

hard chromium electroplating,

decorative chromium electroplating,

and chromium anodizing have been

expanded, and are now expressed in

terms of process parameters as well as

by function. Regardless of what name a

facility has assigned to its process, for

the purposes of the regulation, the

process will be regulated according to

its function, bath operating parameters,

and desired plating characteristics.

Therefore, black decorative chromium

electroplaters would likely be subject to

the standards for hard chromium

electroplaters based on plating

characteristics. The EPA will provide

States with additional guidance on these

types of applicability issues in the

enabling document.

The commenters that use a lowamperage electroplating process were

concerned that such a process would

not be allowed by the rule, even though

emissions from this process are low.

Although the process does differ from

other hard chromium electroplating

processes in that a lower amperage is

used, the rule does not preclude the use

of this process or any other technique to

meet the applicable emission limitation.

The rule does require that the technique

be demonstrated through performance

testing conducted in accordance with

the test methods and procedures

identified in the final rule, and that

compliance monitoring be conducted to

determine continuous compliance.

B. Selection of MACT/GACT Approach

Ten commenters questioned the

Agency’s decision to regulate area

sources with MACT. A number of these

commenters disagreed that the

chromium compound toxicity data

alone was justification for regulating
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4953

area sources as stringently as major

sources. Other commenters stated that

the costs to area sources regulated with

MACT was unduly burdensome,

particularly if those sources would be

subject to title V. Two commenters

suggested that the EPA apply GACT

standards to small facilities to allow the

Agency to focus its resources on

facilities posing the greatest impact, or

establish a threshold below which

sources would be subject to GACT.

Another commenter questioned the

EPA’s decision to apply MACT to area

sources on the grounds that the Act does

not intend a residual risk analysis for

area sources. This commenter noted that

it was important to have separate

standards for area sources even if GACT

was as stringent as MACT to preserve

the intent of section 112(d).

In determining whether to apply

MACT or GACT to the area sources in

this source category, the EPA

considered the toxicity of chromium

compounds emitted from such sources

and the availability of controls. The EPA

has concluded that MACT should be

applied to all area sources in all source

categories. The basis for this decision is

the toxicity of chromium compounds.

The potency of hexavalent chromium,

which is categorized as a Group A

carcinogen, is well documented, and at

least three epidemiological studies have

shown a strong association between

lung cancer and occupational exposures

to mixtures of trivalent and hexavalent

chromium. Therefore, the Agency has

concluded that all chromium

compounds emitted to the air should be

considered toxic until adequate data are

available to determine otherwise.

In selecting MACT over GACT for all

area sources, the EPA also evaluated the

availability of control technologies and

the cost of compliance for area sources.

The control technologies that form the

bases for MACT are widely available.

Although § 112(d)(5) of the Act does

allow an alternative standard for area

sources, the EPA interprets this

paragraph as authorizing the

Administrator to establish GACT

standard for area sources when the

imposition of MACT is determined to be

unreasonable. For the source categories

subject to subpart N, the Agency

considers it reasonable to apply MACT

to area sources.

C. Selection of MACT for Hard

Chromium Electroplating Tanks

1. Selection of the MACT Floor

Four commenters suggested that the

MACT floor for new hard chromium

electroplating tanks should be based on

the use of a fiber-bed mist eliminator

(FBME) because this is the best

technology in use.

The EPA has gathered additional

information since proposal in response

to public comments received. Based on

this information, a total of five facilities

are known to be using FBME to control

chromium emissions from affected hard

chromium electroplating and chromium

anodizing tanks. These five facilities

represent different sizes of hard

chromium electroplating and chromium

anodizing operations.

Emission test data were obtained from

four of the five facilities using FBME

(see Item No. IV–B–01 of Docket A–88–

02). The emission test data available

from one facility were incomplete and

could not be used to assess the

performance of fiber-bed units. The test

results from the other facilities were

adequate to evaluate the performance of

FBME. However, after a thorough

evaluation, it was determined that the

limited data are not sufficient to

establish an emission limit which must

be met on a continuous long-term basis.

In one case, the data were inadequate

because only a single traverse was made

when two should have been performed.

In the other cases, the quantity of

emissions captured during sampling

was too small to meet Agency

guidelines on minimum quantification

levels. These data, therefore, must be

treated as qualitative rather than

quantitative results and may not be used

to establish achievable emission limits.

Based on this qualitative assessment, it

appears that FBME offer excellent

control potential.

In evaluating control technologies, the

Agency also must consider the

sustainability of any performance level.

The EPA is concerned with the longterm performance of these systems

because of the tendency of the fiber beds

to plug. In other contexts, most vendors

of FBME systems do not recommend

their use as primary pollution control

systems. Rather, they recommend that

coarse prefiltering be provided upstream

of the fiber beds to prevent plugging.

The prefiltering devices range from a

series of mesh pads to a complete

packed-bed scrubber unit. At present,

there are no long-term data available to

assess any actual deterioration or

operational problems associated with

FBME. Fiber-bed mist eliminators to

control chromium electroplating and

anodizing tanks have only recently been

installed as a result of local air district

requirements; therefore, it is unlikely

that any long-term data are available.

Because of the uncertainties in both

the measured FBME performance data

and the potential long-term variability

of the system performance, the

Administrator cannot at this time

determine that a more stringent

emission limit could be achieved based

on the application of FBME technology

for new hard chromium plating or

chromium anodizing operations.

Therefore, the final MACT performance

level of new hard chromium

electroplating and chromium anodizing

tanks is unchanged from the proposal.

However, the limited data do suggest

that FBME systems can achieve the

emission limits established for

composite mesh-pad systems and fume

suppressants. Because this standard is a

performance standard, the use of a

specific technology is not mandatory;

therefore, any system that meets or

exceeds the required performance level

may be used.

In order to facilitate the use of FBME

to achieve compliance with the

standard, monitoring provisions have

been included in the final rule for use

with FBME. (See discussion in section

V.H.) The test methods in the proposed

rule are suitable for demonstrating

compliance with the standard regardless

of the control technology employed.

2. Regulatory Alternatives Considered

Eight commenters suggested that the

EPA was too limiting in the regulatory

alternatives for hard chromium

electroplating operations. These

commenters believed that the EPA

should allow sources in this subcategory

to use fume suppressants to comply

with the standard, instead of locking

sources into a control technology, such

as packed-bed scrubbers. Four of the

commenters also proposed that the EPA

allow new and existing hard chromium

electroplating operations the option of

meeting the same surface tension limit

allowed for decorative chromium

electroplating operations that use a

wetting agent-type fume suppressant.

The EPA has selected an emission

limit format to provide sources with the

flexibility to choose the emission

control strategy best suited to their

facility. The regulation only requires

that any strategy selected meet the

emission limits set out in the rule. As

such, hard chromium electroplating

sources can use fume suppressants to

achieve compliance with the standard,

as long as initial compliance testing

demonstrates that the emission limit

stipulated in the standard is being

achieved. As discussed later in this

preamble, however, on-going

compliance monitoring is controltechnique specific. As such, the owner

or operator of any source that uses a

fume suppressant to comply with an

emission limitation shall monitor

surface tension or foam blanket
4954 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

thickness, as appropriate, to

demonstrate continuous compliance.

3. Selection of MACT

Several commenters remarked that the

standard for existing hard chromium

electroplaters is inappropriate. Nine

commenters stated that the standard

was too stringent for large, hard

chromium electroplaters; small, hard

chromium electroplaters; or both. The

arguments against regulating existing

hard chromium electroplaters as

stringently as that proposed were

primarily that the costs associated with

the standard were unduly burdensome

and did not justify the resulting

environmental benefit, and the emission

concentration limits specified in the

proposed rule were not consistently

achievable using the control devices

upon which the standards are based.

Five commenters, on the other hand,

indicated that the standard for small,

hard chromium electroplaters was too

lenient. The arguments presented by the

commenters who supported a more

stringent standard for small, hard

chromium electroplaters were that the

residual risk associated with emissions

from these sources warranted more

stringent controls, the Agency’s

interpretation of the MACT floor was

flawed (i.e.; should be based on a

straight average, not a median); and the

control efficiency for packed-bed

scrubbers is overstated, as are the cost

impacts for a standard based on the use

of composite mesh-pad systems.

In setting an emission standard, the

Act directs the Administrator to take

into account costs, nonair quality health

and environmental impacts, and energy

requirements. To fulfill this requirement

for existing hard chromium

electroplating sources, the EPA

evaluated the cost, impact, and benefit

of a standard based on the use of a

packed-bed scrubber as well as a

standard based on the use of a

composite mesh-pad system. The

Agency’s estimate of the incremental

cost effectiveness of requiring all

sources to meet a standard based on

composite mesh-pad systems compared

to one based on packed-bed scrubbers is

approximately $3.7 million per

Megagram of chromium controlled ($/

Mg) for large sources and $10.7 million/

Mg for small sources.

Based on the EPA’s economic

analysis, a standard based on the use of

composite mesh-pad systems by all

sources would not cause adverse

economic effects on large sources that

currently use packed-bed scrubbers. Due

to economies of scale, the economic

impacts on larger facilities are

consistently less than those on small

facilities. As a result, larger facilities

will have a greater ability to pass on

control costs. Although these costs may

seem high, the EPA believes the toxicity

of chromium justifies these costs. In

consideration of the potential adverse

impacts to small sources, the final rule

requires a less stringent standard for

small sources than large sources, which

is based on the use of packed-bed

scrubbers rather than composite meshpad systems. [See Chapter 5 of the New

Technology Document (‘‘Technical

Assessment of New Emission Control

Technologies Used in the Hard

Chromium Electroplating Industry;’’

EPA–453/R–93–031) for a detailed

discussion of EPA’s economic analysis

for these systems.]

The EPA considers the emission

limitation based on the use of composite

mesh-pad systems to be representative

of and consistently achievable with

well-maintained units. No data were

submitted to support an alternate

emission limitation. (For further

discussion of the emission limitations,

see section V.F.)

Regarding the comments that the

proposed standard for small, hard

electroplaters was too lenient, the

Agency believes that the MACT floor is

properly based on the use of packed-bed

scrubbers for this source category. The

EPA promulgated a final rule on June 6,

1994 (57 FR 29196) that presents the

Agency’s interpretation of section

112(d)(A) of the Act regarding the basis

for the MACT floor. Under this

interpretation, the Agency considers the

emission limitations achieved by the

best performing 12 percent of existing

sources and arrives at the MACT floor

by selecting the median of the values,

rather than a straight average. This

interpretation was followed in

establishing the MACT floor for small,

hard chromium electroplaters. The

Agency considers any discussion of the

risk remaining from small, hard

chromium electroplaters to be

premature at this time.

In accordance with section 112(f) of

the Act, if a significant residual risk

from small, hard chromium

electroplating operations regulated by

MACT is found, the Agency is required

to promulgate standards to mitigate that

risk. The EPA recognizes the potential

hazards of chromium emissions from

small sources and has chosen to regulate

area sources with MACT rather than

GACT. The EPA also considers its cost

and impact analysis for small, hard

chromium electroplaters to be sound.

The EPA estimated retrofit costs based

on information from vendors who

supply the equipment to the industry,

and therefore estimates are

representative of the control costs

incurred by affected sources. The EPA

considers the efficiency assigned to

packed-bed scrubbers for purposes of

calculating impacts to be representative

of that achieved by well-maintained and

well-operated units controlling

emissions from hard chromium

electroplating tanks. As with comments

on the emission limit based on

composite mesh-pad systems, no data

supporting alternate emission limits for

a standard based on packed-bed

scrubbers were submitted.

D. Selection of MACT for Decorative

Chromium Electroplating and

Chromium Anodizing Tanks

1. Regulation of the Trivalent Chromium

Plating Process

Eleven commenters disagreed that

decorative chromium electroplating

tanks that use a trivalent chromium

process should be regulated by the

proposed rule. Many of the commenters

felt that the EPA had insufficient data to

conclude that the risk associated with

this process warranted regulation of

those sources. Four commenters found

fault with the EPA’s supporting data

and noted that the level of hexavalent

chromium in a trivalent chromium bath

that corresponds to the EPA’s estimate

of hexavalent emissions from that bath

would far exceed that level of

hexavalent chromium that would

destroy the trivalent bath. Three other

commenters stated that use of the

trivalent chromium process should be

encouraged by the EPA, because

trivalent processes result in less total

chromium in process wastewater and

less sludge generation. One of the

commenters suggested regulating

trivalent chromium electroplating

processes under GACT to eliminate

some of the burden associated with the

reporting, recordkeeping, and

monitoring requirements specified in

the proposed rule.

Twelve commenters responded to the

EPA’s request for comment on whether

the trivalent chromium electroplating

process should be required for new

sources. The majority of these

commenters did not think that this

should be a requirement because the

process was not technically feasible for

the full range of decorative chromium

electroplating operations. Two

commenters pointed out inconsistencies

in the EPA’s reasoning; the EPA can

only require trivalent chromium baths if

it recognizes the difference in toxicity

between hexavalent and trivalent

chromium.

The EPA has reconsidered the

technical basis for regulating tanks
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4955

using the trivalent chromium

electroplating process and the feasibility

of requiring such a process for new

sources. During development of the

proposed standards, the EPA evaluated

the trivalent chromium electroplating

process as a pollution prevention

alternative. Chromic acid is not present

in the plating solution in the trivalent

chromium processes, and hexavalent

chromium is regarded as a bath

contaminant in these processes. In

addition, all of the trivalent chromium

plating solutions with which EPA is

familiar contain a wetting agent as an

inherent bath component. That is, the

wetting agent is part of the plating

solution purchased from the vendor; it

is not added separately by the end user.

With a trivalent chromium plating

process, the potential emissions of

chromium in any form are much lower

because the concentration of total

chromium in trivalent chromium baths

is approximately four times lower than

the total chromium concentration in

chromic acid baths. Trivalent chromium

processes greatly reduce emissions of

the most potent form of chromium

(hexavalent), and significantly lower

emissions of chromium in other forms.

In addition to reduction of air

emissions, the use of trivalent

chromium processes results in lower

chromium concentrations in process

wastewaters and, consequently, reduces

the amount of sludge generated. Based

on a source test conducted by the EPA,

total chromium emissions from a

trivalent chromium bath are

approximately 99 percent less than

those from a traditional, uncontrolled

decorative hexavalent chromium bath.

Hexavalent chromium emissions from a

trivalent chromium bath were found to

be approximately equivalent to those

emitted from a decorative hexavalent

chromium bath controlled by adding a

wetting agent.

Although chromium emissions from

the trivalent chromium process were

low, the EPA had not anticipated the

presence of hexavalent chromium in

emissions from the trivalent

electroplating process nor the level of

total chromium emissions. Given that

the Act lists all forms of chromium on

the HAP list, the EPA considered the

trivalent chromium electroplating

process as a source of chromium

emissions as well as an emission control

alternative for the chromic acid

electroplating process. Based on the

emission test results, a decorative

hexavalent chromium bath controlled

by adding a wetting agent had

equivalent hexavalent chromium

emissions and less total chromium

emissions than a trivalent chromium

plating bath. (As previously stated, for

trivalent chromium baths, the wetting

agent is inherent to the solution; it does

not need to be added by the user.) In

addition, the trivalent chromium

process may not be technically feasible

for all decorative chromium

electroplating applications. Therefore,

the final rule does not require the use

of a trivalent chromium electroplating

process for either existing or new

decorative chromium electroplating

tanks.

The EPA has decided to regulate

sources that use trivalent chromium

baths in the final rule. It is not clear

whether the EPA data accurately reflect

emissions from the trivalent chromium

electroplating process, or if the

analytical integrity of the data is

suspect. In light of the ambiguity of the

air emissions data, and given the other

environmental benefits from the

trivalent chromium process, the EPA

has decided to regulate these baths

differently from hexavalent chromium

electroplating baths.

The final rule requires users of

trivalent chromium baths to submit an

initial notification and a notification of

compliance status certifying that a

trivalent chromium bath is being used

and identifying the bath components

(specifically, the wetting agent).

Subsequent notifications are required

only if the process is changed, or if a

new trivalent chromium process is

introduced. Users of trivalent chromium

baths must also keep records of bath

chemicals purchased so the EPA can be

assured that the bath contains a wetting

agent. These notification and

recordkeeping requirements apply only

to those trivalent chromium baths that

incorporate a wetting agent. The EPA

has evaluated baths with this

characteristic and found them to have

the environmental benefits discussed

above. Although such baths are not

known to exist, the EPA has chosen to

regulate trivalent chromium baths that

do not incorporate a wetting agent in the

same manner as decorative chromium

baths using a chromic acid solution. The

EPA believes that this will discourage

the use of a trivalent chromium bath

that does not have a wetting agent as an

inherent bath component.

2. Selection of MACT for Decorative

Chromium Electroplating Tanks

Three commenters suggested that the

proposed emission limit of 0.003 mg/

dscm for decorative chromium

electroplaters using hexavalent

chromium baths was too stringent. Two

commenters did not think that a source

using either a fume suppressant or a

fume suppressant in conjunction with a

packed-bed scrubber could consistently

meet a limit of 0.003 mg/dscm.

In response to the comments received

at proposal, the EPA has reconsidered

the basis for the emission limit of 0.003

mg/dscm for decorative chromium

electroplating and chromium anodizing

tanks. As stated in the preamble to the

proposed rule, this emission limit was

based on tests of a decorative chromium

electroplating tank in which a

combination wetting agent/foam blanket

was used to control emissions. Tests

had also been conducted on a decorative

chromium electroplating tank using

only a foam blanket for control. The

chromium emission data for all types of

fume suppressants ranged from 0.001 to

0.007 mg/dscm, with the wetting agent/

foam blanket data ranging from 0.001 to

0.003 mg/dscm and the foam blanket

data ranging from 0.003 to 0.007 mg/

dscm. In evaluating whether the

proposed emission limit of 0.003 mg/

dscm should be revised in the final rule,

the EPA reassessed the effect the test

methods may have had on the emission

data obtained. The analytical method

used for the fume suppressant test was

colorimetric spectroscopy. As more

efficient control technologies (such as

composite mesh-pad systems) were

developed, a more sensitive analytical

method was needed to measure the

lower concentrations of chromium being

emitted. Therefore, the more sensitive

ion chromatography method was used

in the later phases of emission testing

for these standards involving add-on

control devices.

By using the less sensitive

colorimetric analytical method, it is

unclear whether the variation found

between the two types of fume

suppressants was due to a performance

difference in the fume suppressants or

was an artifact of the analytical method

used. The fact that there is overlap

between the foam blanket and wetting

agent/foam blanket data further

indicates that this could be the case.

(Both were able to achieve a limit of

0.003 mg/dscm in one instance.)

Therefore, the EPA has concluded that

the emission limit in the final rule

should be based on the performance of

both foam blankets and wetting agents.

Accordingly, the emission limit selected

for decorative chromium electroplating

and chromium anodizing tanks in the

final rule is 0.01 mg/dscm. This

emission limit was selected by applying

a safety factor to the highest measured

data point (0.007 mg/dscm) to account

for variations in sampling and analytical

procedures. The selection of this

emission limit is consistent with the

methodology used to select emission

limits based on other control
4956 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

techniques, as is further discussed in

section V.F.

3. Selection of MACT Floor/MACT for

Chromium Anodizing Tanks

Three commenters questioned the

MACT floor established by the EPA for

sources performing chromium

anodizing. The commenters stated that

it did not appear that the EPA had

sufficient data to perform a MACT floor

analysis for these sources. Commenters

stated that chromium anodizers and

decorative chromium electroplaters that

cannot use fume suppressants should be

considered separately, and the MACT

floor for such sources should be based

on packed-bed scrubbers. Also,

according to six commenters, the

standard for chromium anodizing tanks

is not achievable in all situations,

especially when an add-on control

device is used in lieu of fume

suppressants. One commenter stated

that unless the standard for chromium

anodizing tanks controlled with add-on

control devices is set at 0.03 mg/dscm,

sources will have to use an add-on

control device followed by a fiber-bed

mist eliminator to achieve the emission

limit.

The MACT floor for chromium

anodizing sources was based on

information available to the EPA on the

source category. Information on the

industry was obtained through survey

questionnaires to both industry

representatives and control system

vendors, site visit reports, and available

emission data. Although information

was not available from all sources in the

category, the EPA believes the

information was sufficient to satisfy the

requirements of section 112(d)(3) of the

Act. The survey responses, which

included some aerospace facilities,

indicated that fume suppressants were

the control technique used

predominantly in the industry. Section

112(d)(3) of the Act prohibits the EPA

from establishing a standard that is any

less stringent than the MACT floor for

a category or subcategory of sources. No

technical reason was provided by

industry, nor is one known to the EPA,

for creating a separate subcategory of

sources for which fume suppressants are

not technically feasible. Thus, all new

and existing sources performing

chromium anodizing must meet either

an emission limit of 0.01 mg/dscm or

maintain the surface tension specified

in the rule. The EPA believes that the

revised chromium emission limit of 0.01

mg/dscm for chromium anodizing tanks

in the final rule is achievable by sources

using add-on control technology.

Alternatively, the EPA believes that the

compliance timeframe for existing

sources performing chromium

anodizing in the final rule (2 years) will

allow these sources to further

investigate the feasibility of using fume

suppressants.

E. Selection of the Format of the

Standard

Seven commenters stated that the

format of the standard should be

expressed as a process emission rate in

milligrams of chromium emitted per

amp-hour of operation (mg/amp-hr),

which would be consistent with

California rules, rather than as an

emission concentration (mg/dscm).

According to the commenters,

concentration-based standards are

flawed because they can be

circumvented by dilution, concentration

can vary from system to system, and

source test data indicate that outlet

concentrations vary widely for different

inlet conditions. Several commenters

also pointed out that emissions should

be correlated to production rates

because chromium emissions increase

proportionately with increased current.

Two other commenters suggested that

the final rule specify acceptable process

emission rates to avoid an equivalency

evaluation.

Based on the Agency’s evaluation, the

available test data indicate that a

process emission rate format will not

ensure consistent compliance with the

control level required by the standard.

The concentration data collected by the

EPA for the composite mesh-pad and

packed-bed scrubber systems do not

overlap; that is, composite mesh-pad

systems consistently outperform

packed-bed scrubbers. The process

emission rate data, on the other hand do

overlap; even though composite meshpad systems are a superior technology to

packed-bed scrubbers, both sometimes

achieve the same process emission rate.

This occurs because two sources can be

using the same control technology and

achieving the same outlet emissions

concentration, but the one with the

higher current loading will have a lower

process emission rate. Commenters

contend that this is reasonable because

the production rate, as measured in

ampere-hours, is related to emissions.

However, the amount of current

supplied to the tank is an indicator of

the amount of uncontrolled emissions

from the tank, not the controlled

emission level from the tank. Because of

the differences in process emission ratebased and concentration-based

standards, and the source-specific

nature of process emission rate

standards, the EPA cannot cite an

equivalent process emission rate in the

final rule.

Regarding the issue of circumvention

of the standard through dilution of the

emission stream, the EPA believes that

dilution of the gas stream can be

determined by reviewing test and

permit data for a facility. The outlet air

flow rate measured during testing

should approximate the design air flow

rate for the control system reported on

the permit application. If the two values

differ significantly, then an inspection

of the control system can be made to

determine if dilution air is being

introduced. It is also possible for a

facility to dilute the inlet gas stream to

the control device by designing a system

to ventilate the electroplating tanks at

air flow rates substantially above those

required for adequate ventilation.

However, the increased installation and

maintenance costs associated with such

a system would outweigh the costs of

complying with the standard without

dilution. Further, § 63.4(b) of the

General Provisions expressly prohibits

dilution as a means to comply with an

emission limit. Therefore, concerns of

dilution of the air stream were not

considered to outweigh the benefits of a

concentration-based format for the

standard.

Eight commenters disagreed with the

EPA’s decision to base the standard on

emissions of total chromium rather than

on emissions of hexavalent chromium.

Two commenters suggested allowing

sources to demonstrate compliance by

testing for hexavalent chromium in lieu

of total chromium.

The EPA decided to base the standard

on total chromium because the HAP list

identifies all chromium compounds, not

just hexavalent chromium compounds.

In addition, based on testing conducted

by the EPA for these source categories,

the available test data indicate that

hexavalent and total chromium levels in

the emission stream were essentially the

same for chromic acid baths (varying

within ±10 percent in most instances).

Because the EPA data base is mainly

comprised of data measured as

hexavalent chromium, the final rule

does allow all sources using chromic

acid baths to demonstrate compliance

by measuring either hexavalent or total

chromium for all sources.

F. Selection of the Emission Limits

Many commenters stated that the

emission limit based on the use of

composite mesh-pad systems should be

changed. Three commenters suggested

lowering the emission limit that is based

on the use of composite mesh-pad

systems, stating that the EPA did not

test the best systems available, and

suggested levels ranging from 0.001 mg/

dscm to 0.009 mg/dscm. Other
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4957

commenters stated that the proposed

limit based on composite mesh-pad

systems (0.013 mg/dscm) was too low.

Five commenters stated that the

proposed emission limit for packed-bed

scrubbers was also too high, noting that

some units tested by the EPA did not

achieve this limit.

The proposed emission limit of 0.013

mg/dscm for large hard chromium

electroplaters was based on tests that

the EPA conducted on actual control

devices operating under normal process

conditions. Lower limits than the one

selected for large sources were

measured from these devices, but the

EPA based the emission limit on the

highest measured data point and

believes that this limit is consistently

achievable. Regarding the emission limit

based on packed-bed scrubbers, the EPA

did test some packed-bed scrubber

systems that were not achieving the

level of 0.03 mg/dscm required by the

proposed standard. However, these

devices were not optimized to achieve

the higher removal efficiencies.

Specifically, when scrubbers were

operated with periodic or continuous

washdown in which fresh water was

supplied as makeup to the top of the

bed, a limit of at least 0.03 mg/dscm was

achieved. The final rule includes work

practice standards that require the use

of fresh water added to the top of the

packed bed whenever makeup additions

occur. Thus, packed-bed scrubbers that

are operated in accordance with the

requirements of the rule should be able

to achieve a limit of 0.03 mg/dscm. The

EPA does not think it is appropriate to

substantially change the emission limits

based on the use of composite mesh-pad

systems or packed-bed scrubbers; the

commenters did not provide data that

supported their claim that different

emission limits are more appropriate.

As discussed previously, the emission

limit for decorative chromium

electroplating tanks and chromium

anodizing tanks has been changed to

0.01 mg/dscm in the final rule by

applying a safety factor to the highest

data point (0.007 mg/dscm) in the fume

suppressant data base. Similarly, the

emission limit that is based on packedbed scrubbers is based on rounding the

highest value (0.028 mg/dscm) in the

packed-bed scrubber data base to 0.03

mg/dscm to incorporate a safety factor.

Therefore, in the final rule, the emission

limit that is based on the use of

composite mesh-pad systems (0.013 mg/

dscm) has been adjusted to 0.015 mg/

dscm by applying a safety factor to the

highest value (0.013 mg/dscm) in the

data base to ensure that the limit is

achievable on a consistent basis.

G. Selection of Compliance Dates

Several commenters stated that the

proposed compliance dates for affected

existing sources did not allow sufficient

time to achieve compliance with the

proposed rule. The majority of these

commenters suggested compliance

timeframes of 2 to 3 years. According to

the commenters, the compliance period

specified in the proposed rule did not

allow enough time to inform and

educate affected owners and operators;

acquire capital; conduct research and

test systems; identify, purchase, and

install control equipment; develop

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plans; train staff; build inventories; and

establish reporting and recordkeeping

systems.

The Agency agrees with the

commenters that the compliance

timeframes for affected sources should

be increased. The EPA recognizes that

some of the facilities within all of the

source categories will have to

investigate the technical feasibility of

installing control devices or using other

technologies at their facility to meet the

standards. Also, many area sources are

not yet aware that a rule is to be

promulgated for their industry, and time

is needed for them to be made aware of

the requirements of this rule. Therefore,

the EPA has extended the compliance

date to 1 year after the promulgation

date for existing decorative chromium

electroplaters and 2 years after the

promulgation date for existing hard

chromium electroplaters and chromium

anodizers. The EPA believes that the 1

year timeframe for decorative chromium

electroplaters is sufficient because,

based on the EPA’s survey data, 80

percent of existing sources already use

fume suppressants and very few will

need to install add-on air pollution

control devices. The EPA thinks that the

compliance timeframes in the final rule

will address commenters concerns and

still ensure implementation of controls

in a timely fashion. Due to the toxicity

of chromium compounds and the

importance of controlling chromium

emissions to protect human health and

the environment, the Agency decided

against a compliance time longer than 2

years for any of the source categories

affected.

To accommodate sources that cannot

comply with the standard by the

compliance date, § 63.6(i) of the General

Provisions and § 63.343(a)(6) of subpart

N allows a source to request a 1-year

compliance extension, which must be

submitted 6 months in advance of the

compliance date identified in the

regulation. This extension combined

with the compliance timeframes in the

proposed rule could provide a total of

2 years for compliance for decorative

chromium electroplaters and 3 years for

compliance for hard chromium

electroplaters and chromium anodizers.

H. Selection of Monitoring Requirements

Section 114(a)(3) of the Act requires

enhanced monitoring and compliance

certification of all major stationary

sources. The annual compliance

certifications certify whether

compliance has been continuous or

intermittent. Enhanced monitoring shall

be capable of detecting deviations from

each applicable emission limit or

standard with sufficient

representativeness, accuracy, precision,

reliability, frequency, and timeliness to

determine if compliance is continuous

during a reporting period. The

monitoring in this regulation satisfies

the requirements of enhanced

monitoring.

1. Compliance Monitoring for Add-on

Air Pollution Control Devices

Eleven comments addressed the

suitability of measuring gas velocity to

demonstrate on-going compliance when

add-on air pollution control devices are

used to comply with an emission limit.

The commenters stated that measuring

gas velocity is very complicated,

redundant with measuring pressure

drop, and not indicative of control

device performance. Two commenters

pointed out that no suitable testing

point may be accessible, and a

permanent measurement device may be

fouled by chromic acid.

Several commenters remarked on the

requirement for measuring chromium

concentration in the scrubber water.

Four of these commenters stated that

there is no obvious relationship between

scrubber water chromium concentration

and scrubber performance. Other

commenters indicated that

measurement of chromium

concentration in scrubber water with a

hydrometer is not accurate.

In revising the proposed rule, the EPA

recognizes that the measurement of gas

velocity could be burdensome and that

other control system parameters could

potentially be used to determine ongoing compliance. Therefore, in the

final rule, sources using composite

mesh-pad systems are required to

monitor pressure drop across the device

for compliance purposes. Based on

information gathered by the EPA,

pressure drop is directly related to

composite mesh-pad system

performance, measurement of pressure

drop is straightforward, and some users

of composite mesh-pad systems are

currently monitoring pressure drop. The
4958 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

EPA believes that this change makes the

rule more flexible for regulated sources,

while still ensuring that the EPA has a

mechanism for determining compliance

with the emission limits at any given

time.

The final rule requires sources that

use a packed-bed scrubber to meet the

emission limit must measure the

velocity pressure at the inlet to the

control system as well as the pressure

drop across the device. The relationship

between pressure drop and packed-bed

scrubber performance is less reliable

than the relationship between pressure

drop and composite mesh-pad system

performance because of the lower

pressure drop in packed-bed scrubbers.

Therefore, the EPA also requires sources

using packed-bed scrubbers to monitor

the velocity pressure at the inlet to the

control device. This requirement will

ensure that the gas velocity through the

control system is maintained in

accordance with vendor

recommendations and, along with the

pressure drop monitoring, will ensure

that the control system is properly

operating.

The requirement that sources using

packed-bed scrubbers monitor the

chromium concentration in the scrubber

water has been eliminated, because the

EPA concluded that monitoring of the

velocity pressure at the control device

inlet and the pressure drop across the

device was sufficient to demonstrate

compliance with the emission limits

when packed-bed scrubbers are used.

Compliance monitoring requirements

for fiber-bed mist eliminators have been

added in the final rule because these

devices could likely be used to meet the

emission limitations, and some fiberbed mist eliminators are known to be in

use. Sources that use a fiber-bed mist

eliminator to meet the emission limit

must measure the pressure drop across

the fiber-bed unit, as well as the

pressure drop across the control device

upstream of the fiber-bed unit that is in

place to prevent plugging.

As discussed above, several changes

have been made to the monitoring

requirements specified in the proposed

rule based on the EPA’s review of

comments received on the proposed

rule and further investigation of which

process parameters relate best to proper

performance of the control systems. The

final compliance monitoring

requirements are found in § 63.343(c) of

the final rule.

2. Work Practice Standards for Add-on

Air Pollution Control Devices

In the proposed rule, Operation and

Maintenance (O&M) requirements for

add-on air pollution control devices

consisted of adding makeup water to

packed-bed scrubbers, requiring

washdown of composite mesh pads, and

various inspections for both types of

control devices. The majority of

comments focused on the requirements

associated with makeup water for

packed beds and washdown for

composite mesh pads. Several

commenters suggested alternatives for

the requirements for adding makeup

water to packed-bed scrubbers. The

commenters disagreed that makeup

water can or should be added to the top

of the scrubber. Others questioned the

need to use fresh water in scrubbers and

composite mesh pads because doing so

increased wastewater flows. Other

commenters requested that the final rule

define the term ‘‘fresh water.’’

In the final rule, the O&M

requirements have been replaced with

work practice standards that address

O&M practices [§ 63.342(f)]. The final

rule continues to require sources using

packed-bed scrubbers to meet an

emission limit and ensure that all

makeup water is fresh and supplied to

the unit at the top of the packed bed.

The EPA considers this requirement

essential to meeting the prescribed

emission limit. During source testing

conducted by the EPA to establish the

performance level of packed-bed

scrubbers, it was noted that a system

equipped with an overhead spray

system that periodically cleaned the

packing with fresh water performed

much better than a system without such

cleaning. Based on those results, the

EPA believes that without the

requirement that makeup water be fresh

and added to the top of the packed bed,

scrubbers will not continuously meet

the required emission limit even if the

scrubber met the limit during the initial

performance test and is operated within

the appropriate ranges of pressure drop

and velocity pressure. For clarification,

the term fresh water is defined in the

final rule.

There were 11 comments on the

washdown requirements for composite

mesh-pad systems. Several of these

commenters indicated that the specified

washdown frequency was either

impractical, infeasible, or unnecessary.

Seven commenters suggested washdown

requirements for composite mesh-pad

systems be site-specific, as

recommended by vendors, or apply only

if pressure drop determinations indicate

the potential presence of chromic acid

buildup. Two commenters indicated

that the washdown water will likely

exceed the quantity of water that can be

recycled, thus resulting in a wastewater

stream that needs to be treated.

In the final rule, the EPA has revised

the requirement that sources complying

with an emission limit by using a

composite mesh-pad system perform

washdown of the pads. The EPA

believes that washdown is an essential

part of composite mesh-pad system

operation; if proper system maintenance

such as washdown does not occur, there

will be a decline in system performance.

However, instead of specifying a

washdown frequency, the revised rule

specifies that washdown be conducted

in accordance with manufacturers’

recommendations as part of a facility’s

O&M plan. The EPA recognizes that

vendor designs for these systems vary

significantly, and the requirements for

washdown are based on the design of

the unit and the operation of the plating

tanks. The frequency of washdown is

dependent upon the position of the pad

in the control unit. Pads located in the

front portions of the unit are exposed to

higher chromium concentrations and,

therefore, require washdowns more

frequently than those located in the

back of the unit. Washdown practices

recommended by manufacturers vary

from continuous in some cases to a

maximum of once every 1 to 2 weeks.

The EPA has also added work practice

standards for fiber-bed mist eliminators

in the final rule because these control

devices are likely to meet the emission

limitations, and are known to be in use

by sources affected by these standards.

The work practice standards identified

for fiber-bed mist eliminators are

analogous to those identified for the

composite mesh-pad system. Washdown

requirements for fiber-bed units will

depend on the efficiency of the

prefiltering device and the operation of

the plating tanks. Fiber-bed units

installed downstream of more efficient

prefiltering systems, such as packed-bed

scrubbers, will require less frequent

washdown than those using a less

effective prefiltering device because of

the lower inlet loading to the unit. Most

vendors of fiber-bed units recommended

monitoring of the pressure drop as a

means of gauging when the unit needs

to be washed down. If an increase in

pressure drop is observed, then the unit

will be washed down to remove any

chromium built up on the fiber

elements.

3. Frequency of Monitoring for Add-on

Air Pollution Control Devices

Fourteen commenters indicated that

the daily monitoring of add-on air

pollution control devices is

unnecessary, particularly for small

sources, and suggested that at least some

of the monitoring be required on only a

weekly, monthly, or quarterly basis.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4959

Other commenters suggested that

monitoring be tied to production rate,

that monitoring be conducted only on

days when electroplating is taking

place, or that monitoring requirements

be reduced after the source has been in

compliance for 6 months. Commenters

also requested that monitoring be

required only during tank operation,

and that tank operation be defined.

Several commenters disagreed with the

proposed inspection frequency because

of increased exposure hazards to

persons conducting the inspections or of

anticipated down-time due to the

inaccessibility of control systems.

In response to these comments and to

minimize the burden on regulated

sources, the EPA has reduced the

burden associated with the compliance

monitoring and work practice standards

in the final rule. The final rule

continues to require daily monitoring of

pressure drop and velocity pressure for

compliance, but the monitoring

procedures specified in the rule are the

minimum required to determine

continuous compliance. Once the

monitoring devices are in place, the

only labor required is that needed to

read the gauges. The frequency of

inspections for compliance with the

work practice standards has also been

reduced or revised. In the final rule, the

frequency of inspections has been

reduced from monthly or daily to once

every 3 months. The EPA believes that

the inspections are still necessary to

ensure that system degradation is not

occurring over time, because gradual

degradation may not be apparent from

compliance monitoring alone. Some

commenters noted that their systems

were not accessible for inspection, or

that the inspection would result in

extended downtime. The compliance

timeframes in the final rule should

allow sources sufficient time to retrofit

their systems to facilitate inspections,

and the negative effects of any

downtime are minimized by the

reduced inspection frequency.

The final rule also has been clarified

so that monitoring requirements apply

only during tank operation; tank

operation is defined in § 63.341.

4. Compliance Monitoring Associated

With Fume Suppressants

Regarding the use of wetting agenttype fume suppressants, seven

commenters indicated that the

requirement for maintaining surface

tension below 40 dynes/cm for chromic

acid baths is inappropriate. The reasons

provided by the commenters were that

a surface tension standard may not be

prudent to demonstrate compliance, a

direct correlation between exceedance

of parameters and emission limits has

not been established, and the rule

should allow sources to set their own

compliance value for surface tension.

Other commenters noted that the

specified limit was either too low or was

not consistent with manufacturers’

recommendations.

Based on data collected by the EPA,

the performance of an electroplating

bath controlled with a wetting agenttype fume suppressant can be

determined by the surface tension of the

bath. Therefore, the EPA believes that

there is a direct link between surface

tension and emissions. The EPA also

believes that it is necessary and

appropriate to set a default value for

surface tension in the rule. Based on the

EPA’s experience, many decorative

chromium electroplating tanks are not

ventilated, making source testing

impossible without considerable

retrofitting.

The EPA has increased the default

surface tension limit from the proposed

40 dynes/cm to 45 dynes/cm based on

information received during the

comment period. However, if a facility

believes that a different surface tension

value is appropriate, the rule allows a

source to conduct a performance test

concurrently with surface tension

monitoring to establish the maximum

surface tension that corresponds to

compliance with the emission limits.

The source would subsequently monitor

surface tension, with an exceedance

occurring if the surface tension of the

bath exceeded the value measured

during the performance test.

Regarding foam blanket-type fume

suppressants, several commenters were

concerned about the technique for

measuring foam blanket thickness and

the potential hazards associated with

this measurement. Another commenter

stated that the stack testing requirement

is unreasonable due to its excessive

cost.

The EPA does not believe that it is

necessary to specify a procedure

because it is simply a depth

measurement. Specifying a technique

may also hinder the development of

site-specific techniques to reduce

worker exposure. The EPA believes that

wetting agents are safer than foam

blankets because foam blankets present

a potential safety hazard. The foam traps

the hydrogen gas and chromic acid mist

in the foam layer; if these gases build up

and a spark is generated, a hydrogen

explosion will result. As a means of

encouraging wetting agent use over

foam blankets, sources using wetting

agents do not have to conduct a

performance test unless they want to set

a surface tension limit other than the

default value of 45 dynes/cm. The EPA

believes that the compliance timeframes

in the final rule will allow sources that

currently use foam blankets the

opportunity to explore the use of

wetting agents. Sources that wish to

continue using foam blankets will be

required to conduct a performance test.

5. Frequency of Monitoring Associated

With Fume Suppressants

There were over 20 comments related

to the frequency of monitoring surface

tension. Several of these commenters

made recommendations for alternate

monitoring schedules, ranging from

daily to monthly monitoring, in place of

the 4-hour schedule. Among the reasons

cited for decreasing the surface tension

monitoring frequency were that surface

tension does not change on a daily or

weekly basis, measuring surface tension

is very time-consuming and could

require someone full-time if there were

multiple tanks, and frequent monitoring

results in increased worker exposure.

Thirteen commenters provided

remarks regarding the burden of hourly

testing for sources using foam blankets.

The commenters noted that foam

blankets that are used according to

manufacturer’s instructions are

designed to last 24 hours provided the

air is not agitated at the surface near the

anodes and freeboard height is

adequate. Therefore, visual observation

is adequate for determining foam

blanket effectiveness. Other commenters

stated that the excessive monitoring

requirements for foam blankets

discourage their use, yet several States

recommend or require foam blankets

with less testing and recordkeeping than

that proposed by the EPA.

In response to comments and some

data received, the EPA recognizes that

the 4-hour surface tension monitoring

frequency specified in the proposed rule

may be burdensome, and in some cases,

unnecessary. The EPA has insufficient

data, however, to establish the

monitoring frequency that is appropriate

for each mode of bath operation.

Therefore, the final rule allows a

decrease in monitoring frequency if no

exceedances occur. Section

63.343(c)(5)(ii)(B) specifies that the

surface tension be measured once every

4-hours of tank operation for the first 40

hours of tank operation after the

compliance date. If no exceedances

occur, monitoring can occur once every

8 hours of tank operation. Once there

are again no exceedances during 40

hours of tank operation, surface tension

measurement may be conducted once

every 40 hours of tank operation on an

on-going basis, until an exceedance

occurs. Once an exceedance of the
4960 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

standard occurs or the electroplating

solution is changed out, the original

monitoring schedule must be resumed.

Likewise, the final rule contains

allowances to decrease the frequency of

monitoring foam blanket thickness. The

proposed hourly frequency is based on

the EPA’s experience that foam blankets

can deplete quickly and must be closely

monitored. The final rule is unchanged

in that sources using a foam blanket

must conduct a performance test, and

the initial monitoring frequency is once

per hour. However, as with wetting

agents, the final rule allows a decrease

in monitoring frequency if no

exceedances occur. Section

63.343(c)(6)(ii)(B) specifies that the

foam blanket thickness be measured

once every hour of tank operation for

the first 40 hours of tank operation after

the compliance date. If no exceedances

occur, the time between monitoring may

be increased to once every 4 hours of

tank operation. Once there are no

exceedances during 40 hours of tank

operation, foam blanket thickness

measurement may be conducted once

every 8 hours of tank operation on an

on-going basis. As with wetting agents,

if there is an exceedance or if the

electroplating bath is changed out, the

original monitoring schedule must be

resumed.

I. Selection of Test Methods

Three commenters requested that

CARB Method 425 be evaluated for

equivalency, and if determined to be

equivalent, be identified as such in the

rule. These commenters also stated that

sources that have performed this test

should not have to retest. Four

commenters asked whether retesting

will be required if sources have

conducted performance tests previously

using 306, 306A, or an equivalent test

method.

Section 63.344(c)(2) identifies the

conditions under which the CARB

Method 425 is considered equivalent.

Basically, the acceptability of this test

method will depend upon the analysis

rather than the sampling train or

sampling procedure. Regarding the issue

of whether retesting is required,

§ 63.344(b) of the final rule outlines the

criteria that must be met for a previous

source test to be acceptable.

Two commenters requested that the

rule provide guidance on how to verify

compliance when both chromium

anodizing and hard chromium

electroplating tanks are vented to a

common control device. Three

commenters pointed out that the

regulation does not account for the

situation in which chromium

electroplating sources share a

ventilation system with nonchromium

sources that could introduce dilution

air. Three commenters noted that it is

extremely difficult to reconfigure some

existing systems in such a way that only

the emissions from chromium

electroplating or anodizing are tested.

There are basically two situations

involving multiple tanks manifolded to

one control system: (1) The multiple

tanks include a chromium electroplating

or chromium anodizing tank among

other tanks not affected by the rule; or

(2) the multiple tanks include

chromium tanks performing different

operations (e.g., electroplating and

anodizing) or hard chromium tanks

subject to different emission limits (e.g.,

a new tank and an existing small tank),

which may or may not be controlled

with nonaffected sources. Section

63.344(e) of the final rule includes

compliance provisions for both of these

situations.

J. Selection of Reporting and

Recordkeeping Requirements

Several commenters stated that the

frequency of recordkeeping and

reporting outlined in the proposed rule

was overly burdensome and suggested

several alternatives. Seven commenters

stated that the types of recordkeeping

required by the rule are inappropriate.

In general, the commenters remarked

that records, such as the amount of

chemicals used and purchased and the

amount of fume suppressant material

added do not indicate compliance. Two

commenters stated that recordkeeping

requirements be limited to only surface

tension measurements because that

measurement is the basis of compliance.

One commenter indicated there is no

environmental benefit to keeping

records of gas velocities, pressure drops,

washdown conditions, and scrubber

water chromium concentrations. Two

commenters stated that maintaining

records at a facility for 5 years is

excessive; a more appropriate length of

time would be 3 years. One commenter

suggested a minimum of 2 years.

Two commenters suggested that the

reporting schedule be replaced with a

requirement that the source submit an

annual certification that necessary

control parameters have been met,

consistent with the annual certification

requirements of title V. Another

commenter indicated that sources

should not be required to submit

compliance reports if the source’s

permitting agency inspects the onsite

records annually. Finally, one

commenter suggested that the rule allow

a reduced reporting frequency after 2

years if sources do not experience

exceedances of any State or Federal

emission standards.

Seven commenters stated that the

costs associated with the monitoring

and recordkeeping constituted an

unnecessary burden to both large and

small facilities. These commenters also

noted that the EPA underestimated the

costs associated with monitoring,

reporting, and recordkeeping. Two of

the commenters stated that small

businesses do not have the resources to

keep extensive records. Another

commenter pointed out that the EPA has

recognized differences in large and

small facilities in selecting MACT

emission standards and should also

recognize differences between large and

small facilities in selecting reporting,

recordkeeping, and permitting

requirements.

To respond to comments received and

to reduce the burden on the many area

sources that will be subject to these

standards, the monitoring, reporting,

and recordkeeping requirements have

been reduced in the final rule to the

extent possible while still providing the

EPA with the ability to determine a

source’s continuous compliance status.

The recordkeeping requirements are

contained in § 63.346 of the final rule.

The EPA concurs that the records

required to be kept should correspond

specifically to that which is required to

demonstrate compliance. As such,

recordkeeping associated with fume

suppressants requires only that sources

maintain records of the date and time of

surface tension or foam blanket

thickness measurements, as appropriate,

the value measured, and the date and

time of additions of fume suppressant to

the bath. Likewise, the recordkeeping

associated with the add-on air pollution

control devices is reduced to the extent

that the monitoring requirements have

been reduced. Sources will have to keep

records of pressure drop and velocity

pressure, as appropriate, as well as

records to document adherence with the

O&M plan required by § 63.342(f)(3).

The final rule is unchanged from

proposal in that it requires that owners

or operators of affected sources maintain

records for a period of 5 years following

each occurrence, measurement,

maintenance, corrective action, report,

or record. This requirement is consistent

with the General Provisions and with

the title V permit program. The EPA

believes retention of records for 5 years

allows the EPA to establish a source’s

history and pattern of compliance for

purposes of determining the appropriate

level of enforcement action.

The final rule also requires

submission of on-going compliance

status reports to document whether a
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4961

source has been in continuous

compliance with the standards. The

final rule contains different reporting

schedules for major and area sources.

Major sources are required to submit ongoing compliance status reports

semiannually, unless an exceedance

occurs, at which time quarterly reports

would be required. This change is

analogous to the requirements of the

final General Provisions, which had

only been proposed at the time of this

proposed rulemaking.

In an effort to reduce the burden on

area sources, the final rule allows area

sources to complete an annual

compliance report, and allows the

source to maintain the report on site, to

be made available to the Administrator

or permitting authority upon request.

The EPA recognizes that many

permitting authorities may not be

equipped to handle reports from area

sources, and that these sources may not

be the sources of primary concern to the

authority. However, the requirements in

the final rule do not alleviate affected

area sources from complying with the

reporting requirements of State or

Federal operating permit programs

under title V. The rule does require that

area sources submit reports

semiannually if exceedances occur, or if

required by the Administrator or

permitting authority.

Sources using a trivalent chromium

bath are only required to keep records

of the bath ingredients purchased. These

sources must submit an initial

notification and notification of

compliance status, but are not required

to submit on-going compliance status

reports.

As a result of the reduced monitoring,

reporting, and recordkeeping in the final

rule compared to the proposed rule, the

costs of these activities have also been

reduced. A comparison of the cost of the

monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping associated with the final

and proposed rules was presented in

section III.B of this preamble for each of

the regulated source categories.

One commenter requested that the

rule clearly state which sections of the

General Provisions apply to chromium

electroplating sources and which do not

apply. To eliminate confusion

concerning the applicability of the

General Provisions to this source

category, Table 1 of subpart N lists

which of the General Provisions to part

63 apply and which do not apply to

affected sources.

K. Operating Permit Program

Eleven commenters stated that area

sources should not be required to obtain

title V operating permits because the

costs for area sources to obtain title V

permits would be overly burdensome,

and the emissions from these sources

may be insignificant. Three of these

commenters suggested that the rule

explicitly state that a permit is required

only for applicable emissions units at

nonmajor sources. Two commenters

asked that a general permit be included

in the final rule to reduce the burden for

small facilities. Another commenter

stated that a title V permit is not

necessary because existing requirements

are enforceable through State and local

permits. This commenter and one other

commenter pointed out that because

area sources are not likely to be subject

to multiple MACT standards or to

employ emissions averaging and

complex alternate operating scenarios,

title V permits do not benefit the area

sources.

Two commenters stated that in

preparing their title V permit programs,

States did not anticipate a need for

emission-unit specific permits at

nonmajor sources, and inclusion of

nonmajor sources under title V will

require that many local agencies revise

their permit programs. Two other

commenters stated that States will not

have the resources for completing title

V permits for area sources; some states

have exempted nonmajor sources from

their permitting programs until the

nonmajor source permitting rule is

promulgated in the late 1990’s.

The EPA believes that requiring all

sources that are subject to the standards,

including area sources, to obtain title V

operating permits is important because

of the toxicity of chromium compounds

and the close proximity of many of

these sources to residential areas. The

EPA believes that permitting area

sources will not be overly burdensome

to permitting authorities and affected

sources for the reasons given below.

First, many States are already

permitting these sources under their

State permit programs. The preamble to

the final part 70 rule states that ‘‘some

nonmajor sources would already be

permitted at the State level, and

therefore would have some experience

with the permitting process and

completing permit applications.’’

Therefore, a State would have little

reason to defer title V permitting of

sources that already have State

operating permits. Second, the burden

may be reduced significantly by issuing

general permits to these sources.

According to the preamble to the final

part 70 rule, general permits ‘‘* * *

provide an alternative means for

permitting sources for which the

procedures of the normal permitting

process would be overly burdensome,

such as area sources under section

112* * *’’ Under this option, States

would develop a single general permit

for this source category and issue it to

individual sources; or alternatively, a

letter or certification may be used. The

burden would also be reduced by using

general permits because public

participation and the EPA and affected

State review is only necessary when the

initial general permit is drafted and

issued. When subsequent general

permits are issued to individual sources,

these activities are not required. Finally,

States are developing small business

assistance programs (SBAP’s) to assist

these types of sources with the

permitting process that will be funded

using the annual fees collected from

permitted sources. Small businesses

may also be eligible for reduced

permitting fees. Also, the EPA is

developing a guidance document,

scheduled to be completed by January

1995, which will include sample forms

for monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements, and a simplified

general operating permit.

Under title V, sources must include

information on all emission points

(except those considered insignificant

under the State or local permit program)

in their permit application. However,

only these emission points that are

subject to regulation will be addressed

in the permit.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket for this rulemaking is A–

88–02. The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

submitted to or otherwise considered by

the EPA in the development of this

rulemaking. The principal purposes of

the docket are: (1) To allow interested

parties a means to identify and locate

documents so that they can effectively

participate in the rulemaking process;

and (2) to serve as the record in case of

judicial review (except for interagency

review materials) [section 307(d)(7)(A)

of the Act]. The docket is available for

public inspection at the EPA’s Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center, the location of which is given in

the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

B. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)], the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:
4962 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more, or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of the Executive

Order 12866, the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has notified the EPA

that this action is a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ within the meaning

of the Executive Order. For this reason,

this action was sent to OMB for review.

Changes made in response to OMB

suggestions or recommendations will be

documented in the public record.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

Information collection requirements

associated with this rule have been

approved by OMB under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and have been

assigned OMB control number 2060–

0327. An Information Collection

Request (ICR) document has been

prepared by the EPA (ICR No. 1611.02)

to reflect the changed information

requirements of the final rule and has

been submitted to OMB for review. A

copy may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, Information Policy Branch,

EPA, 401 M Street, SW. (2136),

Washington, DC 20460, or by calling

(202) 260–2740.

The public reporting burden for this

collection of information is estimated to

average 34 hours per respondent in the

first year, 117 hours per respondent in

the second year, and 297 hours per

respondent in the third year. This

estimate includes the time required for

reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and

completing and reviewing the collection

of information. The burden is greatest in

the second and third years because this

is when performance tests will be

conducted. An on-going burden of 104

hours per respondent is representative

of the burden following the third year.

Send comments regarding the burden

estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden, to

Chief, Information Policy Branch, EPA,

401 M Street, SW. (2136), Washington,

DC 20460; and to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, DC 20503, marked

‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.’’

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis be

performed for all rules that have

‘‘significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.’’ If a

preliminary analysis indicates that a

proposed regulation would have a

significant economic impact on 20

percent or more of small entities, then

a regulatory flexibility analysis must be

prepared.

Present Regulatory Flexibility Act

guidelines define an economic impact

as significant if it meets one of the

following criteria:

(1) Compliance increases annual

production costs by more than 5

percent, assuming costs are passed on to

consumers;

(2) Compliance costs as a percentage

of sales for small entities are at least 10

percent more than compliance costs as

a percentage of sales for large entities;

(3) Capital costs of compliance

represent a ‘‘significant’’ portion of

capital available to small entities,

considering internal cash flow plus

external financial capabilities; or

(4) Regulatory requirements are likely

to result in closures of small entities.

Using the Small Business

Administration’s definition of a small

business for SIC Code 3471 of less than

500 employees, it has been determined

that none of the above criteria are

triggered. In the hard chromium

electroplating source category, the

number of small businesses is estimated

to be 1,170. None of the regulatory

alternatives considered will

significantly impact 20 percent of this

operation. For example, the estimated

number of closures is approximated as

less than 5 percent. Likewise, the

standards for decorative chromium

electroplaters and chromium anodizers

would not cause any of the above

criteria to be triggered.

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

605(b), I hereby certify that this rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

business entities because the number of

small business entities that would be

affected is not significant.

E. Miscellaneous

In accordance with section 117 of the

Act, publication of this promulgated

rule was preceded by consultation with

appropriate advisory committees,

independent experts, and Federal

departments and agencies.

This regulation will be reviewed 8

years from the date of promulgation.

This review will include an assessment

of such factors as evaluation of the

residual health risks, any overlap with

other programs, the existence of

alternative methods, enforceability,

improvements in emission control

technology and health data, and the

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 9 and

63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Incorporation by reference,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: November 22, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, Chapter I of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as set

forth below.

PART 9—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 9

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 1235–136y;

15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671;

21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321,

1326, 1330, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O.

11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971–1975;

Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246,

300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2, 300g–3, 300g–4,

300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1, 300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–

4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq., 6901–6992k, 7401–

7671q, 7542, 9601–9657, 11023, 11048.

2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding

a new entry to the table under the

indicated heading in numerical order to

read as follows:

§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

* * * * *

40 CFR citation OMB control No.

* * * * *

National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Source Categories:

* * * * *

63.345–63.347 .......................... 2060–0327

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4963

PART 63—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 63.14 is amended by

adding paragraphs (b) (4) and (5) to read

as follows:

§ 63.14 Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) ASTM D 1193–77, Standard

Specification for Reagent Water, IBR

approved for Method 306, section 4.1.1

and section 4.4.2, of appendix A to part

63.

(5) ASTM D 1331–89, Standard Test

Methods for Surface and Interfacial

Tension of Solutions of Surface Active

Agents, IBR approved for Method 306B,

section 2.2, section 3.1, and section 4.2,

of appendix A to part 63.

* * * * *

3. By adding a new subpart N to read

as follows:

Subpart N—National Emission Standards

for Chromium Emissions From Hard and

Decorative Chromium Electroplating and

Chromium Anodizing Tanks

Sec.

63.340 Applicability and designation of

sources.

63.341 Definitions and nomenclature.

63.342 Standards.

63.343 Compliance provisions.

63.344 Performance test requirements and

test methods.

63.345 Provisions for new and

reconstructed sources.

63.346 Recordkeeping requirements.

63.347 Reporting requirements.

Table 1 to Subpart N of Part 63—

General Provisions Applicability to

Subpart N

Subpart N—National Emission

Standards for Chromium Emissions

From Hard and Decorative Chromium

Electroplating and Chromium

Anodizing Tanks

§ 63.340 Applicability and designation of

sources.

(a) The affected source to which the

provisions of this subpart apply is each

chromium electroplating or chromium

anodizing tank at facilities performing

hard chromium electroplating,

decorative chromium electroplating, or

chromium anodizing.

(b) Owners or operators of affected

sources subject to the provisions of this

subpart must also comply with the

requirements of subpart A of this part,

according to the applicability of subpart

A of this part to such sources, as

identified in Table 1 of this subpart.

(c) Process tanks associated with a

chromium electroplating or chromium

anodizing process, but in which neither

chromium electroplating nor chromium

anodizing is taking place, are not subject

to the provisions of this subpart.

Examples of such tanks include, but are

not limited to, rinse tanks, etching

tanks, and cleaning tanks. Likewise,

tanks that contain a chromium solution,

but in which no electrolytic process

occurs, are not subject to this subpart.

An example of such a tank is a chrome

conversion coating tank where no

electrical current is applied.

(d) Affected sources in which research

and laboratory operations are performed

are exempt from the provisions of this

subpart when such operations are taking

place.

(e) The owner or operator of an

affected source subject to the

requirements of this subpart is required

to obtain a title V permit from the

permitting authority in which the

affected source is located.

§ 63.341 Definitions and nomenclature.

(a) Definitions. Terms used in this

subpart are defined in the Act, in

subpart A of this part, or in this section.

For the purposes of subpart N of this

part, if the same term is defined in

subpart A of this part and in this

section, it shall have the meaning given

in this section.

Add-on air pollution control device

means equipment installed in the

ventilation system of chromium

electroplating and anodizing tanks for

the purposes of collecting and

containing chromium emissions from

the tank(s).

Air pollution control technique means

any method, such as an add-on air

pollution control device or a chemical

fume suppressant, that is used to reduce

chromium emissions from chromium

electroplating and chromium anodizing

tanks.

Base metal means the metal or metal

alloy that comprises the workpiece.

Bath component means the trade or

brand name of each component(s) in

trivalent chromium plating baths. For

trivalent chromium baths, the bath

composition is proprietary in most

cases. Therefore, the trade or brand

name for each component(s) can be

used; however, the chemical name of

the wetting agent contained in that

component must be identified.

Chemical fume suppressant means

any chemical agent that reduces or

suppresses fumes or mists at the surface

of an electroplating or anodizing bath;

another term for fume suppressant is

mist suppressant.

Chromic acid means the common

name for chromium anhydride (CrO3).

Chromium anodizing means the

electrolytic process by which an oxide

layer is produced on the surface of a

base metal for functional purposes (e.g.,

corrosion resistance or electrical

insulation) using a chromic acid

solution. In chromium anodizing, the

part to be anodized acts as the anode in

the electrical circuit, and the chromic

acid solution, with a concentration

typically ranging from 50 to 100 grams

per liter (g/L), serves as the electrolyte.

Chromium electroplating or

chromium anodizing tank means the

receptacle or container in which hard or

decorative chromium electroplating or

chromium anodizing occurs.

Composite mesh-pad system means

an add-on air pollution control device

typically consisting of several mesh-pad

stages. The purpose of the first stage is

to remove large particles. Smaller

particles are removed in the second

stage, which consists of the composite

mesh pad. A final stage may remove any

reentrained particles not collected by

the composite mesh pad.

Decorative chromium electroplating

means the process by which a thin layer

of chromium (typically 0.003 to 2.5

microns) is electrodeposited on a base

metal, plastic, or undercoating to

provide a bright surface with wear and

tarnish resistance. In this process, the

part(s) serves as the cathode in the

electrolytic cell and the solution serves

as the electrolyte. Typical current

density applied during this process

ranges from 540 to 2,400 Amperes per

square meter (A/m2) for total plating

times ranging between 0.5 to 5 minutes.

Electroplating or anodizing bath

means the electrolytic solution used as

the conducting medium in which the

flow of current is accompanied by

movement of metal ions for the

purposes of electroplating metal out of

the solution onto a workpiece or for

oxidizing the base material.

Emission limitation means, for the

purposes of this subpart, the

concentration of total chromium

allowed to be emitted expressed in

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter

(mg/dscm), or the allowable surface

tension expressed in dynes per

centimeter (dynes/cm).

Facility means the major or area

source at which chromium

electroplating or chromium anodizing is

performed.

Fiber-bed mist eliminator means an

add-on air pollution control device that

removes contaminants from a gas stream

through the mechanisms of inertial

impaction and Brownian diffusion.

These devices are typically installed

downstream of another control device,

which serves to prevent plugging, and
4964 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

consist of one or more fiber beds. Each

bed consists of a hollow cylinder

formed from two concentric screens; the

fiber between the screens may be

fabricated from glass, ceramic plastic, or

metal.

Foam blanket means the type of

chemical fume suppressant that

generates a layer of foam across the

surface of a solution when current is

applied to that solution.

Fresh water means water, such as tap

water, that has not been previously used

in a process operation or, if the water

has been recycled from a process

operation, it has been treated and meets

the effluent guidelines for chromium

wastewater.

Hard chromium electroplating or

industrial chromium electroplating

means a process by which a thick layer

of chromium (typically 1.3 to 760

microns) is electrodeposited on a base

material to provide a surface with

functional properties such as wear

resistance, a low coefficient of friction,

hardness, and corrosion resistance. In

this process, the part serves as the

cathode in the electrolytic cell and the

solution serves as the electrolyte. Hard

chromium electroplating process is

performed at current densities typically

ranging from 1,600 to 6,500 A/m2 for

total plating times ranging from 20

minutes to 36 hours depending upon

the desired plate thickness.

Hexavalent chromium means the form

of chromium in a valence state of +6.

Large, hard chromium electroplating

facility means a facility that performs

hard chromium electroplating and has a

maximum cumulative potential rectifier

capacity greater than or equal to 60

million ampere-hours per year (amp-hr/

yr).

Maximum cumulative potential

rectifier capacity means the summation

of the total installed rectifier capacity

associated with the hard chromium

electroplating tanks at a facility,

expressed in amperes, multiplied by the

maximum potential operating schedule

of 8,400 hours per year and 0.7, which

assumes that electrodes are energized 70

percent of the total operating time. The

maximum potential operating schedule

is based on operating 24 hours per day,

7 days per week, 50 weeks per year.

Operating parameter value means a

minimum or maximum value

established for a control device or

process parameter which, if achieved by

itself or in combination with one or

more other operating parameter values,

determines that an owner or operator is

in continual compliance with the

applicable emission limitation or

standard.

Packed-bed scrubber means an add-on

air pollution control device consisting

of a single or double packed bed that

contains packing media on which the

chromic acid droplets impinge. The

packed-bed section of the scrubber is

followed by a mist eliminator to remove

any water entrained from the packedbed section.

Research or laboratory operation

means an operation whose primary

purpose is for research and

development of new processes and

products, that is conducted under the

close supervision of technically trained

personnel, and that is not involved in

the manufacture of products for

commercial sale in commerce, except in

a de minimis manner.

Small, hard chromium electroplating

facility means a facility that performs

hard chromium electroplating and has a

maximum cumulative potential rectifier

capacity less than 60 million amp-hr/yr.

Stalagmometer means a device used

to measure the surface tension of a

solution.

Surface tension means the property,

due to molecular forces, that exists in

the surface film of all liquids and tends

to prevent liquid from spreading.

Tank operation means the time in

which current and/or voltage is being

applied to a chromium electroplating

tank or a chromium anodizing tank.

Tensiometer means a device used to

measure the surface tension of a

solution.

Trivalent chromium means the form

of chromium in a valence state of +3.

Trivalent chromium process means

the process used for electrodeposition of

a thin layer of chromium onto a base

material using a trivalent chromium

solution instead of a chromic acid

solution.

Wetting agent means the type of

chemical fume suppressant that reduces

the surface tension of a liquid.

(b) Nomenclature. The nomenclature

used in this subpart has the following

meaning:

(1) AMR=the allowable mass emission

rate from each type of affected source

subject to the same emission limitation

in milligrams per hour (mg/hr).

(2) AMRsys=the allowable mass

emission rate from affected sources

controlled by an add-on air pollution

control device controlling emissions

from multiple sources in mg/hr.

(3) EL=the applicable emission

limitation from § 63.342 in milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter (mg/

dscm).

(4) IAtotal=the sum of all inlet duct

areas from both affected and nonaffected

sources in meters squared.

(5) IDAi=the total inlet area for all

ducts associated with affected sources

in meters squared.

(6) IDAi,a=the total inlet duct area for

all ducts conveying chromic acid from

each type of affected source performing

the same operation, or each type of

affected source subject to the same

emission limitation in meters squared.

(7) VR=the total of ventilation rates

for each type of affected source subject

to the same emission limitation in dry

standard cubic meters per minute

(dscm/min).

(8) VRinlet=the total ventilation rate

from all inlet ducts associated with

affected sources in dscm/min.

(9) VRinlet,a=the total ventilation rate

from all inlet ducts conveying chromic

acid from each type of affected source

performing the same operation, or each

type of affected source subject to the

same emission limitation in dscm/min.

(10) VRtot=the average total ventilation

rate for the three test runs as determined

at the outlet by means of the Method

306 in appendix A of this part testing in

dscm/min.

§ 63.342 Standards.

(a) Each owner or operator of an

affected source subject to the provisions

of this subpart shall comply with these

requirements on and after the

compliance dates specified in

§ 63.343(a). All affected sources are

regulated by applying maximum

achievable control technology.

(b) Applicability of emission limits.

(1) The emission limitations in this

section apply only during tank

operation, and also apply during

periods of startup and shutdown as

these are routine occurrences for

affected sources subject to this subpart.

The emission limitations do not apply

during periods of malfunction, but the

work practice standards that address

operation and maintenance and that are

required by paragraph (f) of this section

must be followed during malfunctions.

(2) If an owner or operator is

controlling a group of tanks with a

common add-on air pollution control

device, the emission limitations of

paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this

section apply whenever any one

affected source is operated. The

emission limitation that applies to the

group of affected sources is:

(i) The emission limitation identified

in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this

section if the affected sources are

performing the same type of operation

(e.g., hard chromium electroplating), are

subject to the same emission limitation,

and are not controlled by an add-on air

pollution control device also controlling

nonaffected sources;
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4965

(ii) The emission limitation calculated

according to § 63.344(e)(3) if affected

sources are performing the same type of

operation, are subject to the same

emission limitation, and are controlled

with an add-on air pollution control

device that is also controlling

nonaffected sources; and

(iii) The emission limitation

calculated according to § 63.344(e)(4) if

affected sources are performing different

types of operations, or affected sources

are performing the same operations but

subject to different emission limitations,

and are controlled with an add-on air

pollution control device that may also

be controlling emissions from

nonaffected sources.

(c)(1) Standards for hard chromium

electroplating tanks. During tank

operation, each owner or operator of an

existing, new, or reconstructed affected

source shall control chromium

emissions discharged to the atmosphere

from that affected source by not

allowing the concentration of total

chromium in the exhaust gas stream

discharged to the atmosphere to exceed:

(i) 0.015 milligrams of total chromium

per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm)

of ventilation air (6.6×10¥6 grains per

dry standard cubic foot [gr/dscf]); or

(ii) 0.03 mg/dscm (1.3×10¥5 gr/dscf) if

the hard chromium electroplating tank

is an existing affected source and is

located at a small, hard chromium

electroplating facility.

(2)(i) An owner or operator may

demonstrate the size of a hard

chromium electroplating facility

through the definitions in § 63.341(a).

Alternatively, an owner or operator of a

facility with a maximum cumulative

potential rectifier capacity of 60 million

amp-hr/yr or more may be considered

small if the actual cumulative rectifier

capacity is less than 60 million amp-hr/

yr as demonstrated using the following

procedures:

(A) If records show that the facility’s

previous annual actual rectifier capacity

was less than 60 million amp-hr/yr, by

using nonresettable ampere-hr meters

and keeping monthly records of actual

ampere-hr usage for each 12-month

rolling period following the compliance

date in accordance with § 63.346(b)(12).

The actual cumulative rectifier capacity

for the previous 12-month rolling period

shall be tabulated monthly by adding

the capacity for the current month to the

capacities for the previous 11 months;

or

(B) By accepting a Federallyenforceable limit on the maximum

cumulative potential rectifier capacity

of a hard chromium electroplating

facility through the title V permit

required by § 63.340(e), and by

maintaining monthly records in

accordance with § 63.346(b)(12) to

demonstrate that the limit has not been

exceeded. The actual cumulative

rectifier capacity for the previous 12-

month rolling period shall be tabulated

monthly by adding the capacity for the

current month to the capacities for the

previous 11 months.

(ii) Once the monthly records

required to be kept by § 63.346(b)(12)

and by this paragraph show that the

actual cumulative rectifier capacity over

the previous 12-month rolling period

corresponds to the large designation, the

owner or operator is subject to the

emission limitation identified in

paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, in

accordance with the compliance

schedule of § 63.343(a)(5).

(d) Standards for decorative

chromium electroplating tanks using a

chromic acid bath and chromium

anodizing tanks. During tank operation,

each owner or operator of an existing,

new, or reconstructed affected source

shall control chromium emissions

discharged to the atmosphere from that

affected source by either:

(1) Not allowing the concentration of

total chromium in the exhaust gas

stream discharged to the atmosphere to

exceed 0.01 mg/dscm (4.4×10¥6 gr/

dscf); or

(2) If a chemical fume suppressant

containing a wetting agent is used, by

not allowing the surface tension of the

electroplating or anodizing bath

contained within the affected source to

exceed 45 dynes per centimeter (dynes/

cm) (3.1×10¥3 pound-force per foot [lbf/

ft]) at any time during operation of the

tank.

(e) Standards for decorative

chromium electroplating tanks using a

trivalent chromium bath. (1) Each owner

or operator of an existing, new, or

reconstructed decorative chromium

electroplating tank that uses a trivalent

chromium bath that incorporates a

wetting agent as a bath ingredient is

subject to the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements of

§§ 63.346(b)(14) and 63.347(i), but are

not subject to the work practice

requirements of paragraph (f) of this

section, or the continuous compliance

monitoring requirements in § 63.343(c).

The wetting agent must be an ingredient

in the trivalent chromium bath

components purchased from vendors.

(2) Each owner or operator of an

existing, new, or reconstructed

decorative chromium electroplating

tank that uses a trivalent chromium bath

that does not incorporate a wetting

agent as a bath ingredient is subject to

the standards of paragraph (d) of this

section.

(3) Each owner or operator of existing,

new, or reconstructed decorative

chromium electroplating tank that had

been using a trivalent chromium bath

that incorporates a wetting agent and

ceases using this type of bath must

fulfill the reporting requirements of

§ 63.347(i)(3) and comply with the

applicable emission limitation within

the timeframe specified in

§ 63.343(a)(7).

(f) Work practice standards. The work

practice standards of this section

address operation and maintenance

practices. All owners or operators

subject to the standards in paragraphs

(c) and (d) of this section are subject to

these work practice standards.

(1)(i) At all times, including periods

of startup, shutdown, and malfunction,

owners or operators shall operate and

maintain any affected source, including

associated air pollution control devices

and monitoring equipment, in a manner

consistent with good air pollution

control practices, consistent with the

operation and maintenance plan

required by paragraph (f)(3) of this

section.

(ii) Malfunctions shall be corrected as

soon as practicable after their

occurrence in accordance with the

operation and maintenance plan

required by paragraph (f)(3) of this

section.

(iii) Operation and maintenance

requirements established pursuant to

section 112 of the Act are enforceable

independent of emissions limitations or

other requirements in relevant

standards.

(2)(i) Determination of whether

acceptable operation and maintenance

procedures are being used will be based

on information available to the

Administrator, which may include, but

is not limited to, monitoring results;

review of the operation and

maintenance plan, procedures, and

records; and inspection of the source.

(ii) Based on the results of a

determination made under paragraph

(f)(2)(i) of this section, the

Administrator may require that an

owner or operator of an affected source

make changes to the operation and

maintenance plan required by paragraph

(f)(3) of this section for that source.

Revisions may be required if the

Administrator finds that the plan:

(A) Does not address a malfunction

that has occurred;

(B) Fails to provide for the operation

of the affected source, the air pollution

control techniques, or the control

system and process monitoring

equipment during a malfunction in a

manner consistent with good air

pollution control practices; or
4966 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(C) Does not provide adequate

procedures for correcting

malfunctioning process equipment, air

pollution control techniques, or

monitoring equipment as quickly as

practicable.

(3) Operation and maintenance plan.

(i) The owner or operator of an affected

source subject to the work practices of

paragraph (f) of this section shall

prepare an operation and maintenance

plan to be implemented no later than

the compliance date. The plan shall be

incorporated by reference into the

source’s title V permit and shall include

the following elements:

(A) The plan shall specify the

operation and maintenance criteria for

the affected source, the add-on air

pollution control device (if such a

device is used to comply with the

emission limits), and the process and

control system monitoring equipment,

and shall include a standardized

checklist to document the operation and

maintenance of this equipment;

(B) For sources using an add-on air

pollution control device or monitoring

equipment to comply with this subpart,

the plan shall incorporate the work

practice standards for that device or

monitoring equipment, as identified in

Table 1 of this section, if the specific

equipment used is identified in Table 1

of this section;

(C) If the specific equipment used is

not identified in Table 1 of this section,

the plan shall incorporate proposed

work practice standards. These

proposed work practice standards shall

be submitted to the Administrator for

approval as part of the submittal

required under § 63.343(d);

(D) The plan shall specify procedures

to be followed to ensure that equipment

or process malfunctions due to poor

maintenance or other preventable

conditions do not occur; and

(E) The plan shall include a

systematic procedure for identifying

malfunctions of process equipment,

add-on air pollution control devices,

and process and control system

monitoring equipment and for

implementing corrective actions to

address such malfunctions.

(ii) If the operation and maintenance

plan fails to address or inadequately

addresses an event that meets the

characteristics of a malfunction at the

time the plan is initially developed, the

owner or operator shall revise the

operation and maintenance plan within

45 days after such an event occurs. The

revised plan shall include procedures

for operating and maintaining the

process equipment, add-on air pollution

control device, or monitoring equipment

during similar malfunction events, and

a program for corrective action for such

events.

(iii) Recordkeeping associated with

the operation and maintenance plan is

identified in § 63.346(b). Reporting

associated with the operation and

maintenance plan is identified in

§ 63.347 (g) and (h) and paragraph

(f)(3)(iv) of this section.

(iv) If actions taken by the owner or

operator during periods of malfunction

are inconsistent with the procedures

specified in the operation and

maintenance plan required by paragraph

(f)(3)(i) of this section, the owner or

operator shall record the actions taken

for that event and shall report such

actions within 2 working days after

commencing actions inconsistent with

the plan. This report shall be followed

by a letter within 7 working days after

the end of the event, unless the owner

or operator makes alternative reporting

arrangements, in advance, with the

Administrator.

(v) The owner or operator shall keep

the written operation and maintenance

plan on record after it is developed to

be made available for inspection, upon

request, by the Administrator for the life

of the affected source or until the source

is no longer subject to the provisions of

this subpart. In addition, if the

operation and maintenance plan is

revised, the owner or operator shall

keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions

of the operation and maintenance plan

on record to be made available for

inspection, upon request, by the

Administrator for a period of 5 years

after each revision to the plan.

(vi) To satisfy the requirements of

paragraph (f)(3) of this section, the

owner or operator may use applicable

standard operating procedure (SOP)

manuals, Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA) plans, or

other existing plans, provided the

alternative plans meet the requirements

of this section.

(g) The standards in this section that

apply to chromic acid baths shall not be

met by using a reducing agent to change

the form of chromium from hexavalent

to trivalent.

§ 63.343 Compliance provisions.

(a) Compliance dates. (1) The owner

or operator of an existing affected source

shall comply with the emission

limitations in § 63.342 as follows:

(i) No later than 1 year after January

25, 1995, if the affected source is a

decorative chromium electroplating

tank; and

(ii) No later than 2 years after January

25, 1995, if the affected source is a hard

chromium electroplating tank or a

chromium anodizing tank.

(2) The owner or operator of a new or

reconstructed affected source that has

an initial startup after January 25, 1995,

shall comply immediately upon startup

of the source. The owner or operator of

a new or reconstructed affected source

that has an initial startup after

December 16, 1993 but before January

25, 1995, shall follow the compliance

schedule of § 63.6(b) (3) and (4).

TABLE 1 TO § 63.342.—SUMMARY OF WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS

Control technique Work practice standards Frequency

Composite mesh-pad (CMP) system.1. Visually inspect device to ensure there is proper drainage, no chronic acid

buildup on the pads, and no evidence of chemical attack on the structural integrity of the device.

1. 1/quarter.

2. Visually inspect back portion of the mesh pad closest to the fan to ensure there

is no breakthrough of chromic acid mist.

2. 1/quarter.

3. Visually inspect ductwork from tank to the control device to ensure there are no

leaks.

3. 1/quarter.

4. Perform washdown of the composite mesh-pads in accordance with manufacturers recommendations.4. Per manufacturer.

Packed-bed scrubber (PSB) ........ 1. Visually inspect device to ensure there is proper drainage, no chromic acid

buildup on the packed beds, and no evidence of chemical attack on the structural integrity of the device.

1. 1/quarter.

2. Visually inspect back portion of the chevron blade mist eliminator to ensure that

it is dry and there is no breakthrough of chromic acid mist.

2. 1/quarter.

3. Same as number 3 above ..................................................................................... 3. 1/quarter.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4967

TABLE 1 TO § 63.342.—SUMMARY OF WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued

Control technique Work practice standards Frequency

4. Add fresh makeup water to the top of the packed bed a, b .................................... 4. Whenever makeup is

added.

PBS/CMP system ........................ 1. Same as for CMP system ...................................................................................... 1. 1/quarter.

2. Same as for CMP system ...................................................................................... 2. 1/quarter.

3. Same as for CMP system ...................................................................................... 3. 1/quarter.

4. Same as for CMP system ...................................................................................... 4. Per manufacturer.

Fiber-bed mist eliminator c ........... 1. Visually inspect fiber-bed unit and prefiltering device to ensure there is proper

drainage, no chromic acid buildup in the units, and no evidence of chemical attack on the structural integrity of the devices.

1. 1/quarter.

2. Visually inspect ductwork from tank or tanks to the control device to ensure

there are no leaks.

2. 1/quarter.

3. Perform washdown of fiber elements in accordance with manufacturers recommendations.3. Per manufacturer.

Air pollution control device

(APCD) not listed in rule.

To be proposed by the source for approval by the Administrator ............................. To be proposed by the

source for approval

by the Administrator.

Monitoring Equipment

Pitot tube ...................................... Backflush with water, or remove from the duct and rinse with fresh water. Replace

in the duct and rotate 180 degrees to ensure that the same zero reading is obtained. Check pitot tube ends for damage. Replace pitot tube if cracked or fatigued.

1/quarter.

Stalagmometer ............................. Follow manufacturers recommendations ...................................................................

a If greater than 50 percent of the scrubber water is drained (e.g., for maintenance purposes), makeup water may be added to the scrubber

basin. bFor horizontal-flow scrubbers, top is defined as the section of the unit directly above the packing media such that the makeup water would

flow perpendicular to the air flow through the packing. For vertical-flow units, the top is defined as the area downstream of the packing material

such that the makeup water would flow countercurrent to the air flow through the unit. cWork practice standards for the control device installed upstream of the fiber-bed mist eliminator to prevent plugging do not apply as long as

the work practice standards for the fiber-bed unit are followed.

(3) The owner or operator of an

existing area source 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 existing major

sources, including the reporting

provisions of § 63.347(g), immediately

upon becoming a major source.

(4) The owner or operator of a new

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

which construction or reconstruction

was commenced after December 16,

1993) 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.

(5) An owner or operator of an

existing hard chromium electroplating

tank or tanks located at a small, hard

chromium electroplating facility that

increases its maximum cumulative

potential rectifier capacity, or its actual

cumulative rectifier capacity, such that

the facility becomes a large, hard

chromium electroplating facility must

comply with the requirements of

§ 63.342(c)(1)(i) for all hard chromium

electroplating tanks at the facility no

later than 1 year after the month in

which monthly records required by

§§ 63.342(c)(2) and 63.346(b)(12) show

that the large designation is met.

(6) Request for an extension of

compliance. An owner or operator of an

affected source or sources that requests

an extension of compliance shall do so

in accordance with this paragraph and

the applicable paragraphs of § 63.6(i).

When the owner or operator is

requesting the extension for more than

one affected source located at the

facility, then only one request may be

submitted for all affected sources at the

facility.

(i) The owner or operator of an

existing affected source who is unable to

comply with a relevant standard under

this subpart may request that the

Administrator (or a State, when the

State has an approved part 70 permit

program and the source is required to

obtain a part 70 permit under that

program, or a State, when the State has

been delegated the authority to

implement and enforce the emission

standard for that source) grant an

extension allowing the owner or

operator up to 1 additional year to

comply with the standard for the

affected source. The owner or operator

of an affected source who has requested

an extension of compliance under this

paragraph and is otherwise required to

obtain a title V permit for the source

shall apply for such permit or apply to

have the title V permit revised to

incorporate the conditions of the

extension of compliance. The

conditions of an extension of

compliance granted under this

paragraph will be incorporated into the

owner or operator’s title V permit for the

affected source(s) according to the

provisions of 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR

part 71, whichever is applicable.

(ii) Any request under this paragraph

for an extension of compliance with a

relevant standard shall be submitted in

writing to the appropriate authority not

later than 6 months before the affected

source’s compliance date as specified in

this section.

(7) An owner or operator of a

decorative chromium electroplating

tank that uses a trivalent chromium bath

that incorporates a wetting agent, and

that ceases using the trivalent chromium

process, must comply with the emission

limitation now applicable to the tank

within 1 year of switching bath

operation.

(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
4968 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

procedures and test methods listed in

§ 63.7 and § 63.344.

(2) If the owner or operator of an

affected source meets all of the

following criteria, an initial

performance test is not required to be

conducted under this subpart:

(i) The affected source is a decorative

chromium electroplating tank or a

chromium anodizing tank; and

(ii) A wetting agent is used in the

plating or anodizing bath to inhibit

chromium emissions from the affected

source; and

(iii) The owner or operator complies

with the applicable surface tension limit

of § 63.342(d)(2) as demonstrated

through the continuous compliance

monitoring required by paragraph

(c)(5)(ii) of this section.

(3) If the affected source is a

decorative chromium electroplating

tank using a trivalent chromium bath,

and the owner or operator is subject to

the provisions of § 63.342(e), an initial

performance test is not required to be

conducted under this subpart.

(c) Monitoring to demonstrate

continuous compliance. The owner or

operator of an affected source subject to

the emission limitations of this subpart

shall conduct monitoring according to

the type of air pollution control

technique that is used to comply with

the emission limitation. The monitoring

required to demonstrate continuous

compliance with the emission

limitations is identified in this section

for the air pollution control techniques

expected to be used by the owners or

operators of affected sources.

(1) Composite mesh-pad systems. (i)

During the initial performance test, the

owner or operator of an affected source,

or a group of affected sources under

common control, complying with the

emission limitations in § 63.342 through

the use of a composite mesh-pad system

shall determine the outlet chromium

concentration using the test methods

and procedures in § 63.344(c), and shall

establish as a site-specific operating

parameter the pressure drop across the

system, setting the value that

corresponds to compliance with the

applicable emission limitation, using

the procedures in § 63.344(d)(5). An

owner or operator may conduct multiple

performance tests to establish a range of

compliant pressure drop values, or may

set as the compliant value the average

pressure drop measured over the three

test runs of one performance test and

accept ±1 inch of water column from

this value as the compliant range.

(ii) On and after the date on which the

initial performance test is required to be

completed under § 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 ±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.

(2) Packed-bed scrubber systems. (i)

During the initial performance test, the

owner or operator of an affected source,

or group of affected sources under

common control, complying with the

emission limitations in § 63.342 through

the use of a packed-bed scrubber system

shall determine the outlet chromium

concentration using the procedures in

§ 63.344(c), and shall establish as sitespecific operating parameters the

pressure drop across the system and the

velocity pressure at the common inlet of

the control device, setting the value that

corresponds to compliance with the

applicable emission limitation using the

procedures in § 63.344(d) (4) and (5). An

owner or operator may conduct multiple

performance tests to establish a range of

compliant operating parameter values.

Alternatively, the owner or operator

may set as the compliant value the

average pressure drop and inlet velocity

pressure measured over the three test

runs of one performance test, and accept

±1 inch of water column from the

pressure drop value and ±10 percent

from the velocity pressure value as the

compliant range.

(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 scrubber 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.

(3) Packed-bed scrubber/composite

mesh-pad system. The owner or

operator of an affected source, or group

of affected sources under common

control, that uses a packed-bed scrubber

in conjunction with a composite meshpad system to meet the emission

limitations of § 63.342 shall comply

with the monitoring requirements for

composite mesh-pad systems as

identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this

section.

(4) Fiber-bed mist eliminator. (i)

During the initial performance test, the

owner or operator of an affected source,

or group of affected sources under

common control, complying with the

emission limitations in § 63.342 through

the use of a fiber-bed mist eliminator

shall determine the outlet chromium

concentration using the procedures in

§ 63.344(c), and shall establish as a sitespecific operating parameter the

pressure drop across the fiber-bed mist

eliminator and the pressure drop across

the control device installed upstream of

the fiber bed to prevent plugging, setting

the value that corresponds to

compliance with the applicable

emission limitation using the

procedures in § 63.344(d)(5). An owner

or operator may conduct multiple

performance tests to establish a range of

compliant pressure drop values, or may

set as the compliant value the average

pressure drop measured over the three

test runs of one performance test and

accept ± 1 inch of water column from

this value as the compliant range.

(ii) On and after the date on which the

initial performance test is required to be

completed under § 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4969

this part, setting the maximum value

that corresponds to compliance with the

applicable emission limitation. In lieu

of establishing the maximum surface

tension during the performance test, the

owner or operator may accept 45 dynes/

cm as 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 45 dynes/cm if the owner

or operator is using this value in

accordance with paragraph (c)(5)(i) of

this section, shall constitute

noncompliance with the standards. The

surface tension shall be monitored

according to the following schedule:

(A) The surface tension shall be

measured once every 4 hours during

operation of the tank with a

stalagmometer or a tensiometer as

specified in Method 306B, appendix A

of this part.

(B) The time between monitoring can

be increased if there have been no

exceedances. The surface tension shall

be measured once every 4 hours of tank

operation for the first 40 hours of tank

operation after the compliance date.

Once there are no exceedances during

40 hours of tank operation, surface

tension measurement may be conducted

once every 8 hours of tank operation.

Once there are no exceedances during

40 hours of tank operation, surface

tension measurement may be conducted

once every 40 hours of tank operation

on an ongoing basis, until an

exceedance occurs. The minimum

frequency of monitoring allowed by this

subpart is once every 40 hours of tank

operation.

(C) Once an exceedance occurs as

indicated through surface tension

monitoring, the original monitoring

schedule of once every 4 hours must be

resumed. A subsequent decrease in

frequency shall follow the schedule laid

out in paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B) of this

section. For example, if an owner or

operator had been monitoring an

affected source once every 40 hours and

an exceedance occurs, subsequent

monitoring would take place once every

4 hours of tank operation. Once an

exceedance does not occur for 40 hours

of tank operation, monitoring can occur

once every 8 hours of tank operation.

Once an exceedance does not occur for

40 hours of tank operation on this

schedule, monitoring can occur once

every 40 hours of tank operation.

(iii) Once a bath solution is drained

from the affected tank and a new

solution added, the original monitoring

schedule of once every 4 hours must be

resumed, with a decrease in monitoring

frequency allowed following the

procedures of paragraphs (c)(5)(ii) (B)

and (C) of this section.

(6) Foam blanket-type 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 foam blanket in the

electroplating or anodizing bath shall

determine the outlet chromium

concentration using the procedures in

§ 63.344(c), and shall establish as the

site-specific operating parameter the

thickness of the foam blanket, setting

the minimum thickness that

corresponds to compliance with the

applicable emission limitation. In lieu

of establishing the minimum foam

blanket thickness during the

performance test, the owner or operator

may accept 2.54 centimeters (1 inch) as

the minimum foam blanket thickness

that corresponds to compliance with the

applicable emission limitation. All foam

blanket measurements must be taken in

close proximity to the workpiece or

cathode area in the plating tank(s).

(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 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:

(A) The foam blanket thickness shall

be measured once every 1 hour of tank

operation.

(B) The time between monitoring can

be increased if there have been no

exceedances. The foam blanket

thickness shall be measured once every

hour of tank operation for the first 40

hours of tank operation after the

compliance date. Once there are no

exceedances for 40 hours of tank

operation, foam blanket thickness

measurement may be conducted once

every 4 hours of tank operation. Once

there are no exceedances during 40

hours of tank operation, foam blanket

thickness measurement may be

conducted once every 8 hours of tank

operation on an ongoing basis, until an

exceedance occurs. The minimum

frequency of monitoring allowed by this

subpart is once per 8 hours of tank

operation.

(C) Once an exceedance occurs as

indicated through foam blanket

thickness monitoring, the original

monitoring schedule of once every hour

must be resumed. A subsequent

decrease in frequency shall follow the

schedule laid out in paragraph

(c)(6)(ii)(B) of this section. For example,

if an owner or operator had been

monitoring an affected source once

every 8 hours and an exceedance

occurs, subsequent monitoring would

take place once every hour of tank

operation. Once an exceedance does not

occur for 40 hours of tank operation,

monitoring can occur once every 4

hours of tank operation. Once an

exceedance does not occur for 40 hours

of tank operation on this schedule,

monitoring can occur once every 8

hours of tank operation.

(iii) Once a bath solution is drained

from the affected tank and a new

solution added, the original monitoring

schedule of once every hour must be

resumed, with a decrease in monitoring

frequency allowed following the

procedures of paragraphs (c)(6)(ii) (B)

and (C) of this section.

(7) Fume suppressant/add-on control

device. (i) If the owner or operator of an

affected source uses both a fume

suppressant and add-on control device

and both are needed to comply with the

applicable emission limit, monitoring

requirements as identified in paragraphs

(c) (1) through (6) of this section, and

the work practice standards of Table 1

of § 63.342, apply for each of the control

techniques used.

(ii) If the owner or operator of an

affected source uses both a fume

suppressant and add-on control device,

but only one of these techniques is

needed to comply with the applicable

emission limit, monitoring requirements

as identified in paragraphs (c) (1)

through (6) of this section, and work

practice standards of Table 1 of

§ 63.342, apply only for the control

technique used to achieve compliance.

(8) Use of an alternative monitoring

method. (i) Requests and approvals of

alternative monitoring methods shall be

considered in accordance with

§ 63.8(f)(1), (f)(3), (f)(4), and (f)(5).

(ii) After receipt and consideration of

an application for an alternative

monitoring method, the Administrator

may approve alternatives to any
4970 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

monitoring methods or procedures of

this subpart including, but not limited

to, the following:

(A) Alternative monitoring

requirements when installation or use of

monitoring devices specified in this

subpart would not provide accurate

measurements due to interferences

caused by substances within the effluent

gases; or

(B) Alternative locations for installing

monitoring devices when the owner or

operator can demonstrate that

installation at alternate locations will

enable accurate and representative

measurements.

(d) An owner or operator who uses an

air pollution control device not listed in

this section shall submit a description of

the device, test results collected in

accordance with § 63.344(c) verifying

the performance of the device for

reducing chromium emissions to the

atmosphere to the level required by this

subpart, a copy of the operation and

maintenance plan referenced in

§ 63.342(f) including proposed work

practice standards, and appropriate

operating parameters that will be

monitored to establish continuous

compliance with the standards. The

monitoring plan submitted identifying

the continuous compliance monitoring

is subject to the Administrator’s

approval.

§ 63.344 Performance test requirements

and test methods.

(a) Performance test requirements.

Performance tests shall be conducted

using the test methods and procedures

in this section and § 63.7. Performance

test results shall be documented in

complete test reports that contain the

information required by paragraphs

(a)(1) through (a)(9) of this section. The

test plan to be followed shall be made

available to the Administrator prior to

the testing, if requested.

(1) A brief process description;

(2) Sampling location description(s);

(3) A description of sampling and

analytical procedures and any

modifications to standard procedures;

(4) Test results;

(5) Quality assurance procedures and

results;

(6) Records of operating conditions

during the test, preparation of

standards, and calibration procedures;

(7) Raw data sheets for field sampling

and field and laboratory analyses;

(8) Documentation of calculations;

and

(9) Any other information required by

the test method.

(b)(1) If the owner or operator of an

affected source conducts performance

testing at startup to obtain an operating

permit in the State in which the affected

source is located, the results of such

testing may be used to demonstrate

compliance with this subpart if:

(i) The test methods and procedures

identified in paragraph (c) of this

section were used during the

performance test;

(ii) The performance test was

conducted under representative

operating conditions for the source;

(iii) The performance test report

contains the elements required by

paragraph (a) of this section; and

(iv) The owner or operator of the

affected source for which the

performance test was conducted has

sufficient data to establish the operating

parameter value(s) that correspond to

compliance with the standards, as

required for continuous compliance

monitoring under § 63.343(c).

(2) The results of tests conducted

prior to December 1991 in which

Method 306A, appendix A of this part,

was used to demonstrate the

performance of a control technique are

not acceptable.

(c) Test methods. Each owner or

operator subject to the provisions of this

subpart and required by § 63.343(b) to

conduct an initial performance test shall

use the test methods identified in this

section to demonstrate compliance with

the standards in § 63.342.

(1) Method 306 or Method 306A,

‘‘Determination of Chromium Emissions

From Decorative and Hard Chromium

Electroplating and Anodizing

Operations,’’ appendix A of this part

shall be used to determine the

chromium concentration from hard or

decorative chromium electroplating

tanks or chromium anodizing tanks. The

sampling time and sample volume for

each run of Methods 306 and 306A,

appendix A of this part shall be at least

120 minutes and 1.70 dscm (60 dscf),

respectively. Methods 306 and 306A,

appendix A of this part allow the

measurement of either total chromium

or hexavalent chromium emissions. For

the purposes of this standard, sources

using chromic acid baths can

demonstrate compliance with the

emission limits of § 63.342 by

measuring either total chromium or

hexavalent chromium. Hence, the

hexavalent chromium concentration

measured by these methods is equal to

the total chromium concentration for

the affected operations.

(2) The California Air Resources

Board (CARB) Method 425 (which is

available by contacting the California

Air Resources Board, 1102 Q Street,

Sacramento, California 95814) may be

used to determine the chromium

concentration from hard and decorative

chromium electroplating tanks and

chromium anodizing tanks if the

following conditions are met:

(i) If a colorimetric analysis method is

used, the sampling time and volume

shall be sufficient to result in 33 to 66

micrograms of catch in the sampling

train.

(ii) If Atomic Absorption Graphite

Furnace (AAGF) or Ion Chromatography

with a Post-column Reactor (ICPCR)

analyses were used, the sampling time

and volume should be sufficient to

result in a sample catch that is 5 to 10

times the minimum detection limit of

the analytical method (i.e., 1.0

microgram per liter of sample for AAGF

and 0.5 microgram per liter of sample

for ICPCR).

(iii) In the case of either paragraph

(c)(2) (i) or (ii) of this section, a

minimum of 3 separate runs must be

conducted. The other requirements of

§ 63.7 that apply to affected sources, as

indicated in Table 1 of this subpart,

must also be met.

(3) Method 306B, ‘‘Surface Tension

Measurement and Recordkeeping for

Tanks Used at Decorative Chromium

Electroplating and Anodizing

Facilities,’’ appendix A of this part shall

be used to measure the surface tension

of electroplating and anodizing baths.

(4) Alternate test methods may also be

used if the method has been validated

using Method 301, appendix A of this

part and if approved by the

Administrator. Procedures for

requesting and obtaining approval are

contained in § 63.7(f).

(d) Establishing site-specific operating

parameter values. (1) Each owner or

operator required to establish sitespecific operating parameters shall

follow the procedures in this section.

(2) All monitoring equipment shall be

installed such that representative

measurements of emissions or process

parameters from the affected source are

obtained. For monitoring equipment

purchased from a vendor, verification of

the operational status of the monitoring

equipment shall include execution of

the manufacturer’s written

specifications or recommendations for

installation, operation, and calibration

of the system.

(i) Specifications for differential

pressure measurement devices used to

measure velocity pressure shall be in

accordance with section 2.2 of Method

2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).

(ii) Specification for differential

pressure measurement devices used to

measure pressure drop across a control

system shall be in accordance with

manufacturer’s accuracy specifications.

(3) The surface tension of

electroplating and anodizing baths shall
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4971

be measured using Method 306B,

‘‘Surface Tension Measurement and

Recordkeeping for Tanks used at

Decorative Chromium Electroplating

and Anodizing Facilities,’’ appendix A

of this part. This method should also be

followed when wetting agent type or

combination wetting agent/foam blanket

type fume suppressants are used to

control chromium emissions from a

hard chromium electroplating tank and

surface tension measurement is

conducted to demonstrate continuous

compliance.

(4) The owner or operator of a source

required to measure the velocity

pressure at the inlet to an add-on air

pollution control device in accordance

with § 63.343(c)(2), shall establish the

site-specific velocity pressure as

follows:

(i) Locate a velocity traverse port in a

section of straight duct that connects the

hooding on the plating tank or tanks

with the control device. The port shall

be located as close to the control system

as possible, and shall be placed a

minimum of 2 duct diameters

downstream and 0.5 diameter upstream

of any flow disturbance such as a bend,

expansion, or contraction (see Method

1, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A). If 2.5

diameters of straight duct work does not

exist, locate the port 0.8 of the duct

diameter downstream and 0.2 of the

duct diameter upstream from any flow

disturbance.

(ii) A 12-point velocity traverse of the

duct to the control device shall be

conducted along a single axis according

to Method 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix

A) using an S-type pitot tube;

measurement of the barometric pressure

and duct temperature at each traverse

point is not required, but is suggested.

Mark the S-type pitot tube as specified

in Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix

A) with 12 points. Measure the velocity

pressure (∆p) values for the velocity

points and record. Determine the square

root of the individual velocity point ∆p

values and average. The point with the

square root value that comes closest to

the average square root value is the

point of average velocity. The ∆p value

measured for this point during the

performance test will be used as the

reference for future monitoring.

(5) The owner or operator of a source

required to measure the pressure drop

across the add-on air pollution control

device in accordance with § 63.343(c)

(1) through (4) may establish the

pressure drop in accordance with the

following guidelines:

(i) Pressure taps shall be installed at

any of the following locations:

(A) At the inlet and outlet of the

control system. The inlet tap should be

installed in the ductwork just prior to

the control device and the

corresponding outlet pressure tap

should be installed on the outlet side of

the control device prior to the blower or

on the downstream side of the blower;

(B) On each side of the packed bed

within the control system or on each

side of each mesh pad within the

control system; or

(C) On the front side of the first mesh

pad and back side of the last mesh pad

within the control system.

(ii) Pressure taps shall be sited at

locations that are:

(A) Free from pluggage as possible

and away from any flow disturbances

such as cyclonic demisters.

(B) Situated such that no air

infiltration at measurement site will

occur that could bias the measurement.

(iii) Pressure taps shall be constructed

of either polyethylene, polybutylene, or

other nonreactive materials.

(iv) Nonreactive plastic tubing shall

be used to connect the pressure taps to

the device used to measure pressure

drop.

(v) Any of the following pressure

gauges can be used to monitor pressure

drop: a magnehelic gauge, an inclined

manometer, or a ‘‘U’’ tube manometer.

(vi) Prior to connecting any pressure

lines to the pressure gauge(s), each

gauge should be zeroed. No calibration

of the pressure gauges is required.

(e) Special compliance provisions for

multiple sources controlled by a

common add-on air pollution control

device.

(1) This section identifies procedures

for measuring the outlet chromium

concentration from an add-on air

pollution control device that is used to

control multiple sources that may or

may not include sources not affected by

this subpart.

(2) When multiple affected sources

performing the same type of operation

(e.g., all are performing hard chromium

electroplating), and subject to the same

emission limitation, are controlled with

an add-on air pollution control device

that is not controlling emissions from

any other type of affected operation or

from any nonaffected sources, the

applicable emission limitation

identified in § 63.342 must be met at the

outlet of the add-on air pollution control

device.

(3) When multiple affected sources

performing the same type of operation

and subject to the same emission

limitation are controlled with a common

add-on air pollution control device that

is also controlling emissions from

sources not affected by these standards,

the following procedures should be

followed to determine compliance with

the applicable emission limitation in

§ 63.342:

(i) Calculate the cross-sectional area of

each inlet duct (i.e., uptakes from each

hood) including those not affected by

the standard.

(ii) Determine the total sample time

per test run by dividing the total inlet

area from all tanks connected to the

control system by the total inlet area for

all ducts associated with affected

sources, and then multiply this number

by 2 hours. The calculated time is the

minimum sample time required per test

run.

(iii) Perform Method 306 testing and

calculate an outlet mass emission rate.

(iv) Determine the total ventilation

rate from the affected sources by using

equation 1:

VR

IDA

IA tot VR i

total

inlet × =

∑ ( ) 1

where VRtot is the average total

ventilation rate in dscm/min for the

three test runs as determined at the

outlet by means of the Method 306

testing; IDAi is the total inlet area for all

ducts associated with affected sources;

IAtotal is the sum of all inlet duct areas

from both affected and nonaffected

sources; and VRinlet is the total

ventilation rate from all inlet ducts

associated with affected sources.

(v) Establish the allowable mass

emission rate of the system (AMRsys) in

milligrams of total chromium per hour

(mg/hr) using equation 2:

VR EL utes hours AMR inlet sys ∑ × × = 60 2 min / ( )

where Σ VRinlet is the total ventilation

rate in dscm/min from the affected

sources, and EL is the applicable

emission limitation from § 63.342 in

mg/dscm. The allowable mass emission

rate (AMRsys) calculated from equation 2

should be equal to or less than the outlet

three-run average mass emission rate

determined from Method 306 testing in

order for the source to be in compliance

with the standard.
4972 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(4) When multiple affected sources

performing different types of operations

(e.g., hard chromium electroplating,

decorative chromium electroplating, or

chromium anodizing) are controlled by

a common add-on air pollution control

device that may or may not also be

controlling emissions from sources not

affected by these standards, or if the

affected sources controlled by the

common add-on air pollution control

device perform the same operation but

are subject to different emission

limitations (e.g., because one is a new

hard chromium plating tank and one is

an existing small, hard chromium

plating tank), the following procedures

should be followed to determine

compliance with the applicable

emission limitation in § 63.342:

(i) Follow the steps outlined in

paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (e)(3)(iii) of

this section.

(ii) Determine the total ventilation

rate for each type of affected source

using equation 3:

VR

IDA

IA tot VR i a

total

inlet a ×

∑

= ,

, ( ) 3

where VRtot is the average total

ventilation rate in dscm/min for the

three test runs as determined at the

outlet by means of the Method 306

testing; IDAi,a is the total inlet duct area

for all ducts conveying chromic acid

from each type of affected source

performing the same operation, or each

type of affected source subject to the

same emission limitation; IAtotal is the

sum of all duct areas from both affected

and nonaffected sources; and VRinlet,a is

the total ventilation rate from all inlet

ducts conveying chromic acid from each

type of affected source performing the

same operation, or each type of affected

source subject to the same emission

limitation.

(iii) Establish the allowable mass

emission rate in mg/hr for each type of

affected source that is controlled by the

add-on air pollution control device

using equation 4, 5, 6, or 7 as

appropriate:

VRhc1 × ELhc1 × 60 minutes/hour =

AMRhc1 (4)

VRhc2 × ELhc2 × 60 minutes/hour =

AMRhc2 (5)

VRdc × ELdc × 60 minutes/hour = AMRdc

(6)

VRca × ELca × 60 minutes/hour = AMRca

(7)

where ‘‘hc’’ applies to the total of

ventilation rates for all hard chromium

electroplating tanks subject to the same

emission limitation, ‘‘dc’’ applies to the

total of ventilation rates for the

decorative chromium electroplating

tanks, ‘‘ca’’ applies to the total of

ventilation rates for the chromium

anodizing tanks, and EL is the

applicable emission limitation from

§ 63.342 in mg/dscm. There are two

equations for hard chromium

electroplating tanks because different

emission limitations may apply (e.g., a

new tank versus an existing, small tank).

(iv) Establish the allowable mass

emission rate (AMR) in mg/hr for the

system using equation 8, including each

type of affected source as appropriate:

AMRhc1 + AMRhc2 + AMRdc + AMRca =

AMRsys (8)

The allowable mass emission rate

calculated from equation 8 should be

equal to or less than the outlet three-run

average mass emission rate determined

from Method 306 testing in order for the

source to be in compliance with the

standards.

(5) Each owner or operator that uses

the special compliance provisions of

this paragraph to demonstrate

compliance with the emission

limitations of § 63.342 shall submit the

measurements and calculations to

support these compliance methods with

the notification of compliance status

required by § 63.347(e).

(6) Each owner or operator that uses

the special compliance provisions of

this section to demonstrate compliance

with the emission limitations of

§ 63.342 shall repeat these procedures if

a tank is added or removed from the

control system regardless of whether

that tank is a nonaffected source. If the

new nonaffected tank replaces an

existing nonaffected tank of the same

size and is connected to the control

system through the same size inlet duct

then this procedure does not have to be

repeated.

§ 63.345 Provisions for new and

reconstructed sources.

(a) This section identifies the

preconstruction review requirements for

new and reconstructed affected sources

that are subject to, or become subject to,

this subpart.

(b) New or reconstructed affected

sources. The owner or operator of a new

or reconstructed affected source is

subject to § 63.5(a), (b)(1), (b)(5), (b)(6),

and (f)(1), as well as the provisions of

this paragraph.

(1) After January 25, 1995, whether or

not an approved permit program is

effective in the State in which an

affected source is (or would be) located,

no person may construct a new affected

source or reconstruct an affected source

subject to this subpart, or reconstruct a

source such that it becomes an affected

source subject to this subpart, without

submitting a notification of construction

or reconstruction to the Administrator.

The notification shall contain the

information identified in paragraphs (b)

(2) and (3) of this section, as

appropriate.

(2) The notification of construction or

reconstruction required under

paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall

include:

(i) The owner or operator’s name,

title, and address;

(ii) The address (i.e., physical

location) or proposed address of the

affected source if different from the

owner’s or operator’s;

(iii) A notification of intention to

construct a new affected source or make

any physical or operational changes to

an affected source that may meet or has

been determined to meet the criteria for

a reconstruction as defined in § 63.2;

(iv) An identification of subpart N of

this part as the basis for the notification;

(v) The expected commencement and

completion dates of the construction or

reconstruction;

(vi) The anticipated date of (initial)

startup of the affected source;

(vii) The type of process operation to

be performed (hard or decorative

chromium electroplating, or chromium

anodizing);

(viii) A description of the air

pollution control technique to be used

to control emissions from the affected

source, such as preliminary design

drawings and design capacity if an addon air pollution control device is used;

and

(ix) An estimate of emissions from the

source based on engineering

calculations and vendor information on

control device efficiency, expressed in

units consistent with the emission

limits of this subpart. Calculations of

emission estimates should be in

sufficient detail to permit assessment of

the validity of the calculations.

(3) If a reconstruction is to occur, the

notification required under paragraph

(b)(1) of this section shall include the

following in addition to the information

required in paragraph (b)(2) of this

section:

(i) A brief description of the affected

source and the components to be

replaced;

(ii) A brief description of the present

and proposed emission control

technique, including the information

required by paragraphs (b)(2) (viii) and

(ix) of this section;

(iii) An estimate of the fixed capital

cost of the replacements and of

constructing a comparable entirely new

source;

(iv) The estimated life of the affected

source after the replacements; and

(v) A discussion of any economic or

technical limitations the source may
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4973

have in complying with relevant

standards or other requirements after

the proposed replacements. The

discussion shall be sufficiently detailed

to demonstrate to the Administrator’s

satisfaction that the technical or

economic limitations affect the source’s

ability to comply with the relevant

standard and how they do so.

(vi) If in the notification of

reconstruction, the owner or operator

designates the affected source as a

reconstructed source and declares that

there are no economic or technical

limitations to prevent the source from

complying with all relevant standards or

requirements, the owner or operator

need not submit the information

required in paragraphs (b)(3) (iii)

through (v) of this section.

(4) The owner or operator of a new or

reconstructed affected source that

submits a notification in accordance

with paragraphs (b) (1) through (3) of

this section is not subject to approval by

the Administrator. Construction or

reconstruction is subject only to

notification and can begin upon

submission of a complete notification.

(5) Submittal timeframes. After

January 25, 1995, whether or not an

approved permit program is effective in

the State in which an affected source is

(or would be) located, an owner or

operator of a new or reconstructed

affected source shall submit the

notification of construction or

reconstruction required by paragraph

(b)(1) of this section according to the

following schedule:

(i) If construction or reconstruction

commences after January 25, 1995, the

notification shall be submitted as soon

as practicable before the construction or

reconstruction is planned to commence.

(ii) If the construction or

reconstruction had commenced and

initial startup had not occurred before

January 25, 1995, the notification shall

be submitted as soon as practicable

before startup but no later than 60 days

after January 25, 1995.

§ 63.346 Recordkeeping requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of each

affected source subject to these

standards shall fulfill all recordkeeping

requirements outlined in this section

and in the General Provisions to 40 CFR

part 63, according to the applicability of

subpart A of this part as identified in

Table 1 of this subpart.

(b) The owner or operator of an

affected source subject to the provisions

of this subpart shall maintain the

following records for such source:

(1) Inspection records for the add-on

air pollution control device, if such a

device is used, and monitoring

equipment, to document that the

inspection and maintenance required by

the work practice standards of

§ 63.342(f) and Table 1 of § 63.342 have

taken place. The record can take the

form of a checklist and should identify

the device inspected, the date of

inspection, a brief description of the

working condition of the device during

the inspection, and any actions taken to

correct deficiencies found during the

inspection.

(2) Records of all maintenance

performed on the affected source, the

add-on air pollution control device, and

monitoring equipment;

(3) Records of the occurrence,

duration, and cause (if known) of each

malfunction of process, add-on air

pollution control, and monitoring

equipment;

(4) Records of actions taken during

periods of malfunction when such

actions are inconsistent with the

operation and maintenance plan;

(5) Other records, which may take the

form of checklists, necessary to

demonstrate consistency with the

provisions of the operation and

maintenance plan required by

§ 63.342(f)(3);

(6) Test reports documenting results

of all performance tests;

(7) All measurements as may be

necessary to determine the conditions of

performance tests, including

measurements necessary to determine

compliance with the special compliance

procedures of § 63.344(e);

(8) Records of monitoring data

required by § 63.343(c) that are used to

demonstrate compliance with the

standard including the date and time

the data are collected;

(9) The specific identification (i.e., the

date and time of commencement and

completion) of each period of excess

emissions, as indicated by monitoring

data, that occurs during malfunction of

the process, add-on air pollution

control, or monitoring equipment;

(10) The specific identification (i.e.,

the date and time of commencement

and completion) of each period of

excess emissions, as indicated by

monitoring data, that occurs during

periods other than malfunction of the

process, add-on air pollution control, or

monitoring equipment;

(11) The total process operating time

of the affected source during the

reporting period;

(12) Records of the actual cumulative

rectifier capacity of hard chromium

electroplating tanks at a facility

expended during each month of the

reporting period, and the total capacity

expended to date for a reporting period,

if the owner or operator is using the

actual cumulative rectifier capacity to

determine facility size in accordance

with § 63.342(c)(2);

(13) For sources using fume

suppressants to comply with the

standards, records of the date and time

that fume suppressants are added to the

electroplating or anodizing bath;

(14) For sources complying with

§ 63.342(e), records of the bath

components purchased, with the

wetting agent clearly identified as a bath

constituent contained in one of the

components;

(15) Any information demonstrating

whether a source is meeting the

requirements for a waiver of

recordkeeping or reporting

requirements, if the source has been

granted a waiver under § 63.10(f); and

(16) All documentation supporting

the notifications and reports required by

§ 63.9, § 63.10, and § 63.347.

(c) All records shall be maintained for

a period of 5 years in accordance with

§ 63.10(b)(1).

§ 63.347 Reporting requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of each

affected source subject to these

standards shall fulfill all reporting

requirements outlined in this section

and in the General Provisions to 40 CFR

part 63, according to the applicability of

subpart A as identified in Table 1 of this

subpart. These reports shall be made to

the Administrator at the appropriate

address as identified in § 63.13 or to the

delegated State authority.

(1) Reports required by subpart A of

this part and this section may be sent by

U.S. mail, fax, or by another courier.

(i) Submittals sent by U.S. mail shall

be postmarked on or before the specified

date.

(ii) Submittals sent by other methods

shall be received by the Administrator

on or before the specified date.

(2) If acceptable to both the

Administrator and the owner or

operator of an affected source, reports

may be submitted on electronic media.

(b) The reporting requirements of this

section apply to the owner or operator

of an affected source when such source

becomes subject to the provisions of this

subpart.

(c) Initial notifications. (1) The owner

or operator of an affected source that has

an initial startup before January 25,

1995, shall notify the Administrator in

writing that the source is subject to this

subpart. The notification shall be

submitted no later than 180 calendar

days after January 25, 1995, and shall

contain the following information:

(i) The name, title, and address of the

owner or operator;

(ii) The address (i.e., physical

location) of each affected source;
4974 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(iii) A statement that subpart N of this

part is the basis for this notification;

(iv) Identification of the applicable

emission limitation and compliance

date for each affected source;

(v) A brief description of each affected

source, including the type of process

operation performed;

(vi) For sources performing hard

chromium electroplating, the maximum

potential cumulative potential rectifier

capacity;

(vii) For sources performing hard

chromium electroplating, a statement of

whether the affected source(s) is located

at a small or a large, hard chromium

electroplating facility and whether this

will be demonstrated through actual or

maximum potential cumulative rectifier

capacity;

(viii) For sources performing hard

chromium electroplating tanks, a

statement of whether the owner or

operator of an affected source(s) will

limit the maximum potential

cumulative rectifier capacity in

accordance with § 63.342(c)(2) such that

the hard chromium electroplating

facility is considered small; and

(ix) A statement of whether the

affected source is located at a major

source or an area source as defined in

§ 63.2.

(2) The owner or operator of a new or

reconstructed affected source that has

an initial startup after January 25, 1995

shall submit an initial notification (in

addition to the notification of

construction or reconstruction required

by § 63.345(b) as follows:

(i) A notification of the date when

construction or reconstruction was

commenced, shall be submitted

simultaneously with the notification of

construction or reconstruction, if

construction or reconstruction was

commenced before January 25, 1995;

(ii) A notification of the date when

construction or reconstruction was

commenced, shall be submitted no later

than 30 calendar days after such date, if

construction or reconstruction was

commenced after January 25, 1995; and

(iii) A notification of the actual date

of startup of the source shall be

submitted within 30 calendar days after

such date.

(d) Notification of performance test.

(1) The owner or operator of an affected

source shall notify the Administrator in

writing of his or her intention to

conduct a performance test at least 60

calendar days before the test is

scheduled to begin to allow the

Administrator to have an observer

present during the test. Observation of

the performance test by the

Administrator is optional.

(2) In the event the owner or operator

is unable to conduct the performance

test as scheduled, the provisions of

§ 63.7(b)(2) apply.

(e) Notification of compliance status.

(1) A notification of compliance status

is required each time that an affected

source becomes subject to the

requirements of this subpart.

(2) Before a title V permit has been

issued to the owner or operator of an

affected source, each time a notification

of compliance status is required under

this part, the owner or operator of an

affected source shall submit to the

Administrator a notification of

compliance status, signed by the

responsible official (as defined in § 63.2)

who shall certify its accuracy, attesting

to whether the affected source has

complied with this subpart. After a title

V permit has been issued to the owner

or operator of an affected source, the

notification of compliance status shall

be submitted to the appropriate

permitting authority. The notification

shall list for each affected source:

(i) The applicable emission limitation

and the methods that were used to

determine compliance with this

limitation;

(ii) If a performance test is required by

this subpart, the test report

documenting the results of the

performance test, which contains the

elements required by § 63.344(a),

including measurements and

calculations to support the special

compliance provisions of § 63.344(e) if

these are being followed;

(iii) The type and quantity of

hazardous air pollutants emitted by the

source reported in mg/dscm or mg/hr if

the source is using the special

provisions of § 63.344(e) to comply with

the standards. (If the owner or operator

is subject to the construction and

reconstruction provisions of § 63.345

and had previously submitted emission

estimates, the owner or operator shall

state that this report corrects or verifies

the previous estimate.) For sources not

required to conduct a performance test

in accordance with § 63.343(b), the

surface tension measurement may fulfill

this requirement;

(iv) For each monitored parameter for

which a compliant value is to be

established under § 63.343(c), the

specific operating parameter value, or

range of values, that corresponds to

compliance with the applicable

emission limit;

(v) The methods that will be used to

determine continuous compliance,

including a description of monitoring

and reporting requirements, if methods

differ from those identified in this

subpart;

(vi) A description of the air pollution

control technique for each emission

point;

(vii) A statement that the owner or

operator has completed and has on file

the operation and maintenance plan as

required by the work practice standards

in § 63.342(f);

(viii) If the owner or operator is

determining facility size based on actual

cumulative rectifier capacity in

accordance with § 63.342(c)(2), records

to support that the facility is small. For

existing sources, records from any 12-

month period preceding the compliance

date shall be used or a description of

how operations will change to meet a

small designation shall be provided. For

new sources, records of projected

rectifier capacity for the first 12-month

period of tank operation shall be used;

(ix) A statement by the owner or

operator of the affected source as to

whether the source has complied with

the provisions of this subpart.

(3) For sources required to conduct a

performance test by § 63.343(b), the

notification of compliance status shall

be submitted to the Administrator no

later than 90 calendar days following

completion of the compliance

demonstration required by § 63.7 and

§ 63.343(b).

(4) For sources that are not required

to complete a performance test in

accordance with § 63.343(b), the

notification of compliance status shall

be submitted to the Administrator no

later than 30 days after the compliance

date specified in § 63.343(a).

(f) Reports of performance test results.

(1) Before a title V permit has been

issued to the owner or operator of an

affected source, the owner or operator

shall report to the Administrator the

results of any performance test

conducted as required by § 63.7 or

§ 63.343(b). After a title V permit has

been issued to the owner or operator of

an affected source, the owner or

operator should report performance test

results to the appropriate permitting

authority.

(2) Reports of performance test results

shall be submitted no later than 90 days

following the completion of the

performance test, and shall be submitted

as part of the notification of compliance

status required by paragraph (e) of this

section.

(g) Ongoing compliance status reports

for major sources. (1) The owner or

operator of an affected source that is

located at a major source site shall

submit a summary report to the

Administrator to document the ongoing

compliance status of the affected source.

The report shall contain the information

identified in paragraph (g)(3) of this
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4975

section, and shall be submitted

semiannually except when:

(i) The Administrator determines on a

case-by-case basis that more frequent

reporting is necessary to accurately

assess the compliance status of the

source; or

(ii) The monitoring data collected by

the owner or operator of the affected

source in accordance with § 63.343(c)

show that the emission limit has been

exceeded, in which case quarterly

reports shall be submitted. Once an

owner or operator of an affected source

reports an exceedance, ongoing

compliance status reports shall be

submitted quarterly until a request to

reduce reporting frequency under

paragraph (g)(2) of this section is

approved.

(2) Request to reduce frequency of

ongoing compliance status reports. (i)

An owner or operator who is required

to submit ongoing compliance status

reports on a quarterly (or more frequent

basis) may reduce the frequency of

reporting to semiannual if all of the

following conditions are met:

(A) For 1 full year (e.g., 4 quarterly or

12 monthly reporting periods), the

ongoing compliance status reports

demonstrate that the affected source is

in compliance with the relevant

emission limit;

(B) The owner or operator continues

to comply with all applicable

recordkeeping and monitoring

requirements of subpart A of this part

and this subpart; and

(C) The Administrator does not object

to a reduced reporting frequency for the

affected source, as provided in

paragraphs (g)(2) (ii) and (iii) of this

section.

(ii) The frequency of submitting

ongoing compliance status reports may

be reduced only after the owner or

operator notifies the Administrator in

writing of his or her intention to make

such a change, and the Administrator

does not object to the intended change.

In deciding whether to approve a

reduced reporting frequency, the

Administrator may review information

concerning the source’s entire previous

performance history during the 5-year

recordkeeping period prior to the

intended change, or the recordkeeping

period since the source’s compliance

date, whichever is shorter. Records

subject to review may include

performance test results, monitoring

data, and evaluations of an owner or

operator’s conformance with emission

limitations and work practice standards.

Such information may be used by the

Administrator to make a judgment about

the source’s potential for

noncompliance in the future. If the

Administrator disapproves the owner or

operator’s request to reduce reporting

frequency, the Administrator will notify

the owner or operator in writing within

45 days after receiving notice of the

owner or operator’s intention. The

notification from the Administrator to

the owner or operator will specify the

grounds on which the disapproval is

based. In the absence of a notice of

disapproval within 45 days, approval is

automatically granted.

(iii) As soon as the monitoring data

required by § 63.343(c) show that the

source is not in compliance with the

relevant emission limit, the frequency of

reporting shall revert to quarterly, and

the owner shall state this exceedance in

the ongoing compliance status report for

the next reporting period. After

demonstrating ongoing compliance with

the relevant emission limit for another

full year, the owner or operator may

again request approval from the

Administrator to reduce the reporting

frequency as allowed by paragraph (g)(2)

of this section.

(3) Contents of ongoing compliance

status reports. The owner or operator of

an affected source for which compliance

monitoring is required in accordance

with § 63.343(c) shall prepare a

summary report to document the

ongoing compliance status of the source.

The report must contain the following

information:

(i) The company name and address of

the affected source;

(ii) An identification of the operating

parameter that is monitored for

compliance determination, as required

by § 63.343(c);

(iii) The relevant emission limitation

for the affected source, and the

operating parameter value, or range of

values, that correspond to compliance

with this emission limitation as

specified in the notification of

compliance status required by

paragraph (e) of this section;

(iv) The beginning and ending dates

of the reporting period;

(v) A description of the type of

process performed in the affected

source;

(vi) The total operating time of the

affected source during the reporting

period;

(vii) If the affected source is a hard

chromium electroplating tank and the

owner or operator is limiting the

maximum cumulative rectifier capacity

in accordance with § 63.342(c)(2), the

actual cumulative rectifier capacity

expended during the reporting period,

on a month-by-month basis;

(viii) A summary of operating

parameter values, including the total

duration of excess emissions during the

reporting period as indicated by those

values, the total duration of excess

emissions expressed as a percent of the

total source operating time during that

reporting period, and a breakdown of

the total duration of excess emissions

during the reporting period into those

that are due to process upsets, control

equipment malfunctions, other known

causes, and unknown causes;

(ix) A certification by a responsible

official, as defined in § 63.2, that the

work practice standards in § 63.342(f)

were followed in accordance with the

operation and maintenance plan for the

source;

(x) If the operation and maintenance

plan required by § 63.342(f)(3) was not

followed, an explanation of the reasons

for not following the provisions, an

assessment of whether any excess

emission and/or parameter monitoring

exceedances are believed to have

occurred, and a copy of the report(s)

required by § 63.342(f)(3)(iv)

documenting that the operation and

maintenance plan was not followed;

(xi) A description of any changes in

monitoring, processes, or controls since

the last reporting period;

(xii) The name, title, and signature of

the responsible official who is certifying

the accuracy of the report; and

(xiii) The date of the report.

(4) When more than one monitoring

device is used to comply with the

continuous compliance monitoring

required by § 63.343(c), the owner or

operator shall report the results as

required for each monitoring device.

However, when one monitoring device

is used as a backup for the primary

monitoring device, the owner or

operator shall only report the results

from the monitoring device used to meet

the monitoring requirements of this

subpart. If both devices are used to meet

these requirements, then the owner or

operator shall report the results from

each monitoring device for the relevant

compliance period.

(h) Ongoing compliance status reports

for area sources. The requirements of

this paragraph do not alleviate affected

area sources from complying with the

requirements of State or Federal

operating permit programs under 40

CFR part 71.

(1) The owner or operator of an

affected source that is located at an area

source site shall prepare a summary

report to document the ongoing

compliance status of the affected source.

The report shall contain the information

identified in paragraph (g)(3) of this

section, shall be completed annually

and retained on site, and made available

to the Administrator upon request. The

report shall be completed annually
4976 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

except as provided in paragraph (h)(2)

of this section.

(2) Reports of exceedances. (i) If both

of the following conditions are met,

semiannual reports shall be prepared

and submitted to the Administrator:

(A) The total duration of excess

emissions (as indicated by the

monitoring data collected by the owner

or operator of the affected source in

accordance with § 63.343(c)) is 1

percent or greater of the total operating

time for the reporting period; and

(B) The total duration of malfunctions

of the add-on air pollution control

device and monitoring equipment is 5

percent or greater of the total operating

time.

(ii) Once an owner or operator of an

affected source reports an exceedance as

defined in paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this

section, ongoing compliance status

reports shall be submitted semiannually

until a request to reduce reporting

frequency under paragraph (h)(3) of this

section is approved.

(iii) The Administrator may determine

on a case-by-case basis that the

summary report shall be completed

more frequently and submitted, or that

the annual report shall be submitted

instead of being retained on site, if these

measures are necessary to accurately

assess the compliance status of the

source.

(3) Request to reduce frequency of

ongoing compliance status reports. (i)

An owner or operator who is required

to submit ongoing compliance status

reports on a semiannual (or more

frequent) basis, or is required to submit

its annual report instead of retaining it

on site, may reduce the frequency of

reporting to annual and/or be allowed to

maintain the annual report onsite if all

of the following conditions are met:

(A) For 1 full year (e.g., 2 semiannual

or 4 quarterly reporting periods), the

ongoing compliance status reports

demonstrate that the affected source is

in compliance with the relevant

emission limit;

(B) The owner or operator continues

to comply with all applicable

recordkeeping and monitoring

requirements of subpart A of this part

and this subpart; and

(C) The Administrator does not object

to a reduced reporting frequency for the

affected source, as provided in

paragraphs (h)(3) (ii) and (iii) of this

section.

(ii) The frequency of submitting

ongoing compliance status reports may

be reduced only after the owner or

operator notifies the Administrator in

writing of his or her intention to make

such a change, and the Administrator

does not object to the intended change.

In deciding whether to approve a

reduced reporting frequency, the

Administrator may review information

concerning the source’s previous

performance history during the 5-year

recordkeeping period prior to the

intended change, or the recordkeeping

period since the source’s compliance

date, whichever is shorter. Records

subject to review may include

performance test results, monitoring

data, and evaluations of an owner or

operator’s conformance with emission

limitations and work practice standards.

Such information may be used by the

Administrator to make a judgement

about the source’s potential for

noncompliance in the future. If the

Administrator disapproves the owner or

operator’s request to reduce reporting

frequency, the Administrator will notify

the owner or operator in writing within

45 days after receiving notice of the

owner or operator’s intention. The

notification from the Administrator to

the owner or operator will specify the

grounds on which the disapproval is

based. In the absence of a notice of

disapproval within 45 days, approval is

automatically granted.

(iii) As soon as the monitoring data

required by § 63.343(c) show that the

source is not in compliance with the

relevant emission limit, the frequency of

reporting shall revert to semiannual,

and the owner shall state this

exceedance in the ongoing compliance

status report for the next reporting

period. After demonstrating ongoing

compliance with the relevant emission

limit for another full year, the owner or

operator may again request approval

from the Administrator to reduce the

reporting frequency as allowed by

paragraph (h)(3) of this section.

(i) Reports associated with trivalent

chromium baths. The requirements of

this paragraph do not alleviate affected

sources from complying with the

requirements of State or Federal

operating permit programs under title V.

Owners or operators complying with the

provisions of § 63.342(e) are not subject

to paragraphs (a) through (h) of this

section, but must instead submit the

following reports:

(1) Within 180 days after January 25,

1995, submit an initial notification that

includes:

(i) The same information as is

required by paragraphs (c)(1) (i) through

(v) of this section; and

(ii) A statement that a trivalent

chromium process that incorporates a

wetting agent will be used to comply

with § 63.342(e); and

(iii) The list of bath components that

comprise the trivalent chromium bath,

with the wetting agent clearly

identified; and

(2) Within 30 days of the compliance

date specified in § 63.343(a), a

notification of compliance status that

contains an update of the information

submitted in accordance with paragraph

(i)(1) of this section or a statement that

the information is still accurate; and

(3) Within 30 days of a change to the

trivalent chromium electroplating

process, a report that includes:

(i) A description of the manner in

which the process has been changed

and the emission limitation, if any, now

applicable to the affected source;

(ii) If a different emission limitation

applies, the applicable information

required by paragraph (c)(1) of this

section; and

(iii) The notification and reporting

requirements of paragraphs (d), (e), (f),

(g), and (h) of this section, which shall

be submitted in accordance with the

schedules identified in those

paragraphs.

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART N OF PART 63.—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART N

General provisions

reference

Applies to

subpart N Comment

63.1(a)(1) ............................. Yes .............. Additional terms defined in § 63.341; when overlap between subparts A and N occurs, subpart N

takes precedence.

63.1(a)(2) ............................. Yes

63.1(a)(3) ............................. Yes

63.1(a)(4) ............................. Yes .............. Subpart N clarifies the applicability of each paragraph in subpart A to sources subject to subpart

N.

63.1(a)(6) ............................. Yes

63.1(a)(7) ............................. Yes

63.1(a)(8) ............................. Yes
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4977

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART N OF PART 63.—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART N—Continued

General provisions

reference

Applies to

subpart N Comment

63.1(a)(10) ........................... Yes

63.1(a)(11) ........................... Yes .............. § 63.347(a) of subpart N also allows report submissions via fax and on electronic media.

63.1(a)(12)–(14) .................. Yes

63.1(b)(1) ............................. No ................ § 63.340 of subpart N specifies applicability.

63.1(b)(2) ............................. Yes

63.1(b)(3) ............................. No ................ This provision in subpart A is being deleted. Also, all affected area and major sources are subject

to subpart N; there are no exemptions.

63.1(c)(1) ............................. Yes .............. Subpart N clarifies the applicability of each paragraph in subpart A to sources subject to subpart

N.

63.1(c)(2) ............................. Yes .............. Subpart N specifies permit requirements for area sources.

63.1(c)(4) ............................. Yes

63.1(c)(5) ............................. No ................ Subpart N clarifies that an area source that becomes a major source is subject to the requirements for major sources.

63.1(e) ................................. Yes

63.2 ..................................... Yes .............. Additional terms defined in § 63.341; when overlap between subparts A and N occurs, subpart N

takes precedence.

63.3 ..................................... Yes .............. Other units used in subpart N are defined in that subpart.

63.4 ..................................... Yes

63.5(a) ................................. Yes .............. Except replace the term ‘‘source’’ and ‘‘stationary source’’ in § 63.5(a)(1) and (2) of subpart A with

‘‘affected resources.’’

63.5(b)(1) ............................. Yes

63.5(b)(3) ............................. Yes .............. Applies only to major affected sources.

63.5(b)(4) ............................. No ................ Subpart N (§ 63.345) specifies requirements for the notification of construction or reconstruction

for affected sources that are not major.

63.5(b)(5) ............................. Yes

63.5(b)(6) ............................. Yes

63.5(d)(1)(i) ......................... No ................ § 63.345(c)(5) of subpart N specifies when the application or notification shall be submitted.

63.5(d)(1)(ii) ......................... Yes .............. Applies to major affected sources that are new or reconstructed.

63.5(d)(1)(iii) ........................ Yes .............. Except information should be submitted with the Notification of Compliance Status required by

§ 63.347(e) of subpart N.

63.5(d)(2) ............................. Yes .............. Applies to major affected sources that are new or reconstructed except: (1) replace ‘‘source’’ in

§ 63.5(d)(2) of subpart A with ‘‘affected source’’; and (2) actual control efficiencies are submitted

with the Notification of Compliance Status required by § 63.347(e).

63.5(d)(3)–(4) ...................... Yes .............. Applies to major affected sources that are new or reconstructed.

63.5(e) ................................. Yes .............. Applies to major affected sources that are new or reconstructed.

63.5(f)(1) .............................. Yes .............. Except replace ‘‘source’’ in § 63.5(f)(1) of subpart A with ‘‘affected source.’’

63.5(f)(2) .............................. No ................ New or reconstructed affected sources shall submit the request for approval of construction or reconstruction under § 63.5(f) of subpart A by the deadline specified in § 63.345(c)(5) of subpart

N.

63.6(a) ................................. Yes

63.6(b)(1)–(2) ...................... Yes .............. Except replace ‘‘source’’ in § 63.6(b)(1)–(2) of part A with ‘‘affected source.’’

63.6(b)(3)–(4) ...................... Yes

63.6(b)(5) ............................. Yes .............. Except replace ‘‘source’’ in § 63.6(b)(5) of subpart A with ‘‘affected source.’’

63.6(b)(7) ............................. No ................ Provisions for new area sources that become major sources are contained in § 63.343(a)(4) of

subpart N.

63.6(c)(1)–(2) ...................... Yes .............. Except replace ‘‘source’’ in § 63.6(c)(1)–(2) of subpart A with ‘‘affected source.’’

63.6(c)(5) ............................. No ................ Compliance provisions for existing area sources that become major sources are contained in

§ 63.343(a)(3) of subpart N.

63.6(e) ................................. No ................ § 63.342(f) of subpart N contains work practice standards (operation and maintenance requirements) that override these provisions.

63.6(f)(1) .............................. No ................ § 63.342(b) of subpart N specifies when the standards apply.

63.6(f)(2)(i)–(ii) .................... Yes

63.6(f)(2)(iii) ......................... No ................ § 63.344(b) of subpart N specifies instances in which previous performance test results for existing sources are acceptable.

63.6(f)(2)(iv) ......................... Yes

63.6(f)(2)(v) ......................... Yes

63.6(f)(3) .............................. Yes

63.6(g) ................................. Yes

63.6(h) ................................. No ................ Subpart N does not contain any opacity or visible emission standards.

63.6(i)(1) .............................. Yes

63.6(i)(2) .............................. Yes .............. Except replace ‘‘source’’ in § 63.6(i)(2)(i) and (ii) of subpart A with ‘‘affected source.’’

63.6(i)(3) .............................. Yes

63.6(i)(4)(i) ........................... No ................ § 63.343(a)(6) of subpart N specifies the procedures for obtaining an extension of compliance and

the date by which such requests must be submitted.

63.6(i)(4)(ii) .......................... Yes

63.6(i)(5) .............................. Yes

63.6(i)(6)(i) ........................... Yes .............. This paragraph only references ‘‘paragraph (i)(4) of this section’’ for compliance extension provisions. But, § 63.343(a)(6) of subpart N also contains provisions for requesting a compliance extension.

63.6(i)(6)(ii) .......................... Yes

63.6(i)(7) .............................. Yes
4978 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART N OF PART 63.—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART N—Continued

General provisions

reference

Applies to

subpart N Comment

63.6(i)(8) .............................. Yes .............. This paragraph only references ‘‘paragraphs (i)(4) through (i)(6) of this section’’ for compliance extension provisions. But, § 63.343(a)(6) of subpart N also contains provisions for requesting a

compliance extension.

63.6(i)(9) .............................. Yes .............. This paragraph only references ‘‘paragraphs (i)(4) through (i)(6) of this section’’ and ‘‘paragraphs

(i)(4) and (i)(5) of this section’’ for compliance extension provisions. But, § 63.343(a)(6) of subpart N also contains provisions for requesting a compliance extension.

63.6(i)(10)(i)–(iv) .................. Yes

63.6(i)(10)(v)(A) ................... Yes .............. This paragraph only references ‘’paragraph (i)(4)’’ for compliance extension provisions. But,

§ 63.343(a)(6) of subpart N also contains provisions for requesting a compliance extension.

63.6(i)(10)(v)(B) ................... Yes

63.6(i)(11) ............................ Yes

63.6(i)(12)(i) ......................... Yes .............. This paragraph only references ‘‘paragraph (i)(4)(i) or (i)(5) of this section’’ for compliance extension provisions. But, § 63.343(a)(6) of subpart N also contains provisions for requesting a compliance extension.

63.6(i)(12)(ii)–(iii) ................. Yes

63.6(i)(13) ............................ Yes

63.6(i)(14) ............................ Yes

63.6(i)(16) ............................ Yes

63.6(j) .................................. Yes

63.7(a)(1) ............................. Yes

63.7(a)(2)(i)–(vi) .................. Yes

63.7(a)(2)(ix) ........................ Yes

63.7(a)(3) ............................. Yes

63.7(b)(1) ............................. No ................ § 63.347(d) of subpart N requires notification prior to the performance test. § 63.344(a) of subpart

N requires submission of a site-specific test plan upon request.

63.7(b)(2) ............................. Yes

63.7(c) ................................. No ................ § 63.344(a) of subpart N specifies what the test plan should contain, but does not require test plan

approval or performance audit samples.

63.7(d) ................................. Yes .............. Except replace ‘‘source’’ in the first sentence of § 63.7(d) of subpart A with ‘‘affected source.’’

63.7(e) ................................. Yes .............. Subpart N also contains test methods specific to affected sources covered by that subpart.

63.7(f) .................................. Yes .............. § 63.344(c)(2) of subpart N identifies CARB Method 425 as acceptable under certain conditions.

63.7(g)(1) ............................. No ................ Subpart N identifies the items to be reported in the compliance test [§ 63.344(a)] and the timeframe for submitting the results [§ 63.347(f)].

63.7(g)(3) ............................. Yes

63.7(h)(1)–(2) ...................... Yes

63.7(h)(3)(i) ......................... Yes .............. This paragraph only references ‘‘§ 63.6(i)’’ for compliance extension provisions. But, § 63.343(a)(6)

of subpart N also contains provisions for requesting a compliance extension.

63.7(h)(3)(ii)–(iii) .................. Yes

63.7(h)(4)–(5) ...................... Yes

63.8(a)(1) ............................. Yes

63.8(a)(2) ............................. No ................ Work practice standards are contained in § 63.342(f) of subpart N.

63.8(a)(4) ............................. No

63.8(b)(1) ............................. Yes

63.8(b)(2) ............................. No ................ § 63.344(d) of subpart N specifies the monitoring location when there are multiple sources.

63.8(b)(3) ............................. No ................ § 63.347(g)(4) of subpart N identifies reporting requirements when multiple monitors are used.

63.8(c)(1)(i) .......................... No ................ Subpart N requires proper maintenance of monitoring devices expected to be used by sources

subject to subpart N.

63.8(c)(1)(ii) ......................... No ................ § 63.342(f)(3)(iv) of subpart N specifies reporting when the O&M plan is not followed.

63.8(c)(1)(iii) ........................ No ................ § 63.343(f)(2) identifies the criteria for whether O&M procedures are acceptable.

63.8(c)(2)–(3) ...................... No ................ § 63.344(d)(2) requires appropriate use of monitoring devices.

63.8(c)(4)–(7) ...................... No

63.8(d) ................................. No ................ Maintenance of monitoring devices is required by §§ 63.342(f) and 63.344(d)(2) of subpart N.

63.8(e) ................................. No ................ There are no performance evaluation procedures for the monitoring devices expected to be used

to comply with subpart N.

63.8(f)(1) .............................. Yes

63.8(f)(2) .............................. No ................ Instances in which the Administrator may approve alternatives to the monitoring methods and procedures of subpart N are contained in § 63.343(c)(8) of subpart N.

63.8(f)(3) .............................. Yes

63.8(f)(4) .............................. Yes

63.8(f)(5) .............................. Yes

63.8(f)(6) .............................. No ................ Subpart N does not require the use of CEM’s.

63.8(g) ................................. No ................ Monitoring data does not need to be reduced for reporting purposes because subpart N requires

measurement once/day.

63.9(a) ................................. Yes

63.9(b)(1)(i)–(ii) ................... No ................ § 63.343(a)(3) of subpart N requires area sources to comply with major source provisions if an increase in HAP emissions causes them to become major sources.

63.9(b)(1)(iii) ........................ No ................ § 63.347(c)(2) of subpart N specifies initial notification requirements for new or reconstructed affected sources.

63.9(b)(2) ............................. No ................ § 63.347(c)(1) of subpart N specifies the information to be contained in the initial notification.

63.9(b)(3) ............................. No ................ § 63.347(c)(2) of subpart N specifies notification requirements for new or reconstructed sources

that are not major affected sources.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4979

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART N OF PART 63.—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART N—Continued

General provisions

reference

Applies to

subpart N Comment

63.9(b)(4) ............................. No

63.9(b)(5) ............................. No

63.9(c) ................................. Yes .............. This paragraph only references ‘‘§ 63.6(i)(4) through § 63.6(i)(6)’’ for compliance extension provisions. But, § 63.343(a)(6) of subpart N also contains provisions for requesting a compliance extension. Subpart N provides a different timeframe for submitting the request than § 63.6(i)(4).

63.9(d) ................................. Yes .............. This paragraph only references ‘‘the notification dates established in paragraph (g) of this section.’’ But, § 63.347 of subpart N also contains notification dates.

63.9(e) ................................. No ................ Notification of performance test is required by § 63.347(d) of subpart N.

63.9(f) .................................. No

63.9(g) ................................. No ................ Subpart N does not require a performance evaluation or relative accuracy test for monitoring devices.

63.9(h)(1)–(3) ...................... No ................ § 63.347(e) of subpart N specifies information to be contained in the notification of compliance

status and the timeframe for submitting this information.

63.9(h)(5) ............................. No ................ Similar language has been incorporated into § 63.347(e)(2)(iii) of subpart N.

63.9(h)(6) ............................. Yes

63.9(i) .................................. Yes

63.9(j) .................................. Yes

63.10(a) ............................... Yes

63.10(b)(1) ........................... Yes

63.10(b)(2) ........................... No ................ § 63.346(b) of subpart N specifies the records that must be maintained.

63.10(b)(3) ........................... No ................ Subpart N applies to major and area sources.

63.10(c) ............................... No ................ Applicable requirements of § 63.10(c) have been incorporated into § 63.346(b) of subpart N.

63.10(d)(1) ........................... Yes

63.10(d)(2) ........................... No ................ § 63.347(f) of subpart N specifies the timeframe for reporting performance test results.

63.10(d)(3) ........................... No ................ Subpart N does not contain opacity or visible emissions standards.

63.10(d)(4) ........................... Yes

63.10(d)(5) ........................... No ................ § 63.342(f)(3)(iv) and § 63.347(g)(3) of subpart N specify reporting associated with malfunctions.

63.10(e) ............................... No ................ § 63.347(g) and (h) of subpart N specify the frequency of periodic reports of monitoring data used

to establish compliance. Applicable requirements of § 63.10(e) have been incorporated into

§ 63.347(g) and (h).

63.10(f) ................................ Yes

63.11 ................................... No ................ Flares will not be used to comply with the emmission limits.

63.12–63.15 ........................ Yes

3. Appendix A to part 63 is amended

by adding Methods 306 and 306a in

numerical order to read as follows:

Appendix A to part 63—Test Methods

* * * * *

Method 306—Determination of Chromium

Emissions From Decorative and Hard

Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing

Operations

1. Applicability and Principle

1.1 Applicability. This method applies to

the determination of chromium (Cr) in

emissions from decorative and hard chrome

electroplating facilities and anodizing

operations.

1.2 Principle. (a) A sample is extracted

isokinetically from the source using an

unheated Method 5 sampling train (40 CFR

part 60, appendix A), with a glass nozzle and

probe liner, but with the filter omitted. The

Cr emissions are collected in an alkaline

solution: 0.1 N sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or

0.1 N sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3). The

collected samples remain in the alkaline

solution until analysis. Samples with high Cr

concentrations may be analyzed using

inductively coupled plasma emission

spectrometry (ICP) at 267.72 nm.

Alternatively, if improved detection limits

are required, a portion of the alkaline

impinger solution is digested with nitric acid

and analyzed by graphite furnace atomic

absorption spectroscopy (GFAAS) at 357.9

nm.

(b) If it is desirable to determine hexavalent

chromium (Cr∂6) emissions, the samples may

be analyzed using an ion chromatograph

equipped with a post-column reactor (IC/

PCR) and a visible wavelength detector. To

increase sensitivity for trace levels of Cr∂6,

a preconcentration system can be used in

conjunction with the IC/PCR.

2. Range, Sensitivity, Precision, and

Interferences

2.1 Range. The recommended analytical

range for each of the three analytical

techniques is given below. The upper limit

of all three techniques can be extended

indefinitely by appropriate dilution.

2.1.1 GFAAS Range. As reported in

Method 7191 of SW–846 (Citation 5 in

Bibliography), the optimum concentration

range for GFAAS is 5 to 100 μg Cr/l of

concentrated analyte.

2.1.2 ICP Range. A linear response curve

for ICP can be obtained in the range of 10 to

at least 500 μg Cr/l of absorbing solution.

2.1.3 IC/PCR Range. In 40 CFR part 266,

appendix IX, the lower limit of the detection

range for IC/PCR when employing a

preconcentration procedure is reported to be

about 0.1 μg Cr∂6/l of absorbing solution.

2.2 Sensitivity.

2.2.1 Analytical Sensitivity.

2.2.1.1 ICP Analytical Sensitivity. The

minimum detection limit for ICP, as reported

in Method 6010A of SW–846, is 7 μg Cr/l.

2.2.1.2 GFAAS Analytical Sensitivity.

The minimum detection limit for GFAAS, as

reported in Method 7191 of SW–846, is 1 μg

Cr/l.

2.2.1.3 IC/PCR Analytical Sensitivity. The

minimum detection limit for IC/PCR with a

preconcentrator, as reported in 40 CFR part

266, appendix IX is 0.05 μg Cr∂6/l.

2.2.2 In-stack Sensitivity. The in-stack

sensitivity depends upon the analytical

detection limit, the volume of stack gas

sampled, and the total volume of the

impinger absorbing solution plus the rinses.

Using the analytical detection limits given in

sections 2.2.1.1, 2.2.1.2, and 2.2.1.3; a stack

gas sample volume of 1.7 dscm; and a total

liquid sample volume of 500 ml; the

corresponding in-stack detection limits are

0.0021 mg Cr/dscm for ICP, 0.00015 mg Cr/

dscm for GFAAS, and 0.000015 mg Cr∂6/

dscm for IC/PCR with preconcentration.

However, it is recommended that the

concentration of Cr in the analytical

solutions be at least five times the analytical

detection limit to optimize sensitivity in the

analyses. Using this guideline and the same

assumptions for impinger sample volume

and stack gas sample volume (500 ml and 1.7

dscm, respectively), the recommended

minimum stack concentrations for optimum

sensitivity are 0.0103 mg Cr/dscm for ICP,

0.00074 mg Cr/dscm for GFAAS, and

0.000074 mg Cr∂6/dscm for IC/PCR with

preconcentration. If required, the in-stack

detection limits can be improved by either

increasing the stack gas sample volume,
4980 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

reducing the volume of the digested sample

for GFAAS, improving the analytical

detection limits, or any combination of the

three.

2.3 Precision. The following precision

data have been reported for the three

analytical methods. In the case of the GFAAS

there is also bias data. In all cases, when

sampling precision is combined with

analytical precision, the resulting overall

precision may be lower.

2.3.1 GFAAS Precision. As reported in

Method 7191 of SW–846, in a single

laboratory (EMSL), using Cincinnati, Ohio

tap water spiked at concentrations of 19, 48,

and 77 μg Cr/l, the standard deviations were

±0.1, ±0.2, and ±0.8, respectively. Recoveries

at these levels were 97 percent, 101 percent,

and 102 percent, respectively.

2.3.2 ICP Precision. As reported in

Method 6010A of SW–846, in an EPA roundrobin Phase 1 study, seven laboratories

applied the ICP technique to acid/distilled

water matrices that had been spiked with

various metal concentrates. For true values of

10, 50, and 150 μg Cr/l; the mean reported

values were 10, 50, and 149 μg Cr/l; and the

mean percent relative standard deviations

were 18, 3.3, and 3.8 percent, respectively.

2.3.3 IC/PCR Precision. As reported in 40

CFR part 266, appendix IX, the precision of

the IC/PCR with sample preconcentration is

5 to 10 percent; the overall precision for

sewage sludge incinerators emitting 120 ng/

dscm of Cr∂6 and 3.5 μg/dscm of total Cr is

25 percent and 9 percent for Cr∂6 and total

Cr, respectively; and for hazardous waste

incinerators emitting 300 ng/dscm of Cr∂6

the precision is 20 percent.

2.4 Interferences.

2.4.1 GFAAS Interferences. Low

concentrations of calcium and/or phosphate

may cause interferences; at concentrations

above 200 μg/l, calcium’s effect is constant

and eliminates the effect of phosphate.

Calcium nitrate is therefore added to the

concentrated analyte to ensure a known

constant effect. Other matrix modifiers

recommended by the instrument

manufacturer may also be suitable. Nitrogen

should not be used as the purge gas due to

cyanide band interference. Background

correction may be required because of

possible significant levels of nonspecific

absorption and scattering at the 357.9 nm

analytical wavelength. Zeeman or SmithHieftje background correction is

recommended to correct for interferences due

to high levels of dissolved solids in the

alkaline impinger solutions.

2.4.2 ICP Interferences.

2.4.2.1 ICP Spectral Interferences. (a)

Spectral interferences are caused by:

(1) Overlap of a spectral line from another

element;

(2) Unresolved overlap of molecular band

spectra;

(3) Background contribution from

continuous or recombination phenomena;

and

(4) Stray light from the line emission of

high-concentration elements.

(b) Spectral overlap may be compensated

for by computer correcting the raw data after

monitoring and measuring the interfering

element. At the 267.72-nm Cr analytical

wavelength, iron, manganese, and uranium

are potential interfering elements.

Background and stray light interferences can

usually be compensated for by a background

correction adjacent to the analytical line.

Unresolved overlap requires the selection of

an alternative Cr wavelength. Consult the

instrument manufacturer’s operation manual

for interference correction procedures.

2.4.2.2 ICP Physical Interferences. High

levels of dissolved solids in the samples may

cause significant inaccuracies due to salt

buildup at the nebulizer and torch tips. This

problem can be controlled by diluting the

sample or providing for extended rinse times

between sample analyses. Standards are

prepared in the same matrix as the samples

(i.e., 0.1 N NaOH or 0.1 N NaHCO3).

2.4.2.3 ICP Chemical Interferences. These

include molecular compound formation,

ionization effects and solute vaporization

effects, and are usually not significant in ICP,

especially if the standards and samples are

matrix matched.

2.4.3 IC/PCR Interferences. Components

in the sample matrix may cause Cr∂6 to

convert to trivalent chromium (Cr∂3) or

cause Cr∂3 to convert to Cr∂6. The

chromatographic separation of Cr∂6 using

ion chromatography reduces the potential for

other metals to interfere with the postcolumn reaction. For the IC/PCR analysis,

only compounds that coelute with Cr∂6 and

affect the diphenylcarbazide reaction will

cause interference. Periodic analyses of

reagent water blanks are used to demonstrate

that the analytical system is essentially free

of contamination. Sample crosscontamination that can occur when highlevel and low-level samples or standards are

analyzed alternately is eliminated by

thorough purging of the sample loop. Purging

can easily be achieved by increasing the

injection volume of the samples to ten times

the size of the sample loop.

3. Apparatus

3.1 Sampling Train. A schematic of the

sampling train used in this method is shown

in Figure 306-1. The train is the same as

Method 5, section 2.1 (40 CFR part 60,

appendix A), except that the filter is omitted,

and quartz or borosilicate glass must be used

for the probe nozzle and liner in place of

stainless steel. It is not necessary to heat the

probe liner. Probe fittings of plastic such as

Teflon, polypropylene, etc. are recommended

over metal fittings to prevent contamination.

If desired, a single combined probe nozzle

and liner may be used, but such a single glass

piece is not a requirement of this

methodology. Use 0.1 N NaOH or 0.1 N

NaHCO3 in the impingers in place of water.

3.2 Sample Recovery. Same as Method 5,

section 2.2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A),

with the following exceptions:

3.2.1 Probe-Liner and Probe-Nozzle

Brushes. Brushes are not necessary for

sample recovery. If a probe brush is used, it

must be nonmetallic.

3.2.2 Sample Recovery Solution. Use 0.1

N NaOH or 0.1 N NaHCO3, whichever was

used as the impinger absorbing solution, in

place of acetone to recover the sample.

3.2.3 Sample Storage Containers.

Polyethylene, with leak-free screw cap, 500

ml or 1,000 ml.

3.2.4 Filtration Apparatus for IC/PCR.

Teflon, or equivalent, filter holder and 0.45

μm acetate, or equivalent, filter.

3.3 Analysis. For analysis, the following

equipment is needed.

3.3.1 General.

3.3.1.1 Phillips Beakers. (Phillips beakers

are preferred, but regular beakers can also be

used.)

3.3.1.2 Hot Plate.

3.3.1.3 Volumetric Flasks. Class A,

various sizes as appropriate.

3.3.1.4 Assorted Pipettes.

3.3.2 Analysis by GFAAS.

3.3.2.1 Chromium Hollow Cathode Lamp

or Electrodeless Discharge Lamp.

3.3.2.2 Graphite Furnace Atomic

Absorption Spectrophotometer.

3.3.3 Analysis by ICP.

3.3.3.1 ICP Spectrometer. Computercontrolled emission spectrometer with

background correction and radio frequency

generator.

3.3.3.2 Argon Gas Supply. Welding grade

or better.

3.3.4 Analysis by IC/PCR.

3.3.4.1 IC/PCR System. High performance

liquid chromatograph pump, sample

injection valve, post-column reagent delivery

and mixing system, and a visible detector,

capable of operating at 520 nm, all with a

nonmetallic (or inert) flow path. An

electronic peak area mode is recommended,

but other recording devices and integration

techniques are acceptable provided the

repeatability criteria and the linearity criteria

for the calibration curve described in section

6.4.1 can be satisfied. A sample loading

system will be required if preconcentration is

employed.

3.3.4.2 Analytical Column. A high

performance ion chromatograph (HPIC)

nonmetallic column with anion separation

characteristics and a high loading capacity

designed for separation of metal chelating

compounds to prevent metal interference.

Resolution described in section 5.5 must be

obtained. A nonmetallic guard column with

the same ion-exchange material is

recommended.

3.3.4.3 Preconcentration Column. An

HPIC nonmetallic column with acceptable

anion retention characteristics and sample

loading rates as described in section 5.5.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4981

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
4982 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

3.3.4.4 0.45-μm Filter Cartridge. For the

removal of insoluble material. To be used just

prior to sample injection/analysis.

4. Reagents

Unless otherwise indicated, all reagents

shall conform to the specifications

established by the Committee on Analytical

Reagents of the American Chemical Society

(ACS reagent grade). Where such

specifications are not available, use the best

available grade.

4.1 Sampling.

4.1.1 Water. Reagent water that conforms

to ASTM Specification D1193-77, Type II

(incorporated by reference—see § 63.14). It is

recommended that water blanks be checked

prior to preparing sampling reagents to

ensure that the Cr content is less than the

analytical detection limit.

4.1.2 Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH)

Absorbing Solution, 0.1 N or Sodium

Bicarbonate (NaHCO3) Absorbing Solution,

0.1 N. Dissolve 4.0 g of sodium hydroxide in

1 l of water, or dissolve 8.5 g of sodium

bicarbonate in 1 l of water.

4.2 Sample Recovery.

4.2.1 0.1 N NaOH or 0.1 N NaHCO3. See

section 4.1.2. Use the same solution for

recovery as was used in the impingers.

4.2.2 pH Indicator Strip, for IC/PCR. pH

indicator capable of determining the pH of

solutions between the pH range of 7 and 12,

at 0.5 pH intervals.

4.3 Sample Preparation and Analysis.

4.3.1 Nitric Acid (HNO3), Concentrated,

for GFAAS. Trace metals grade or better

HNO3 must be used for reagent preparation.

The ACS reagent grade HNO3 is acceptable

for cleaning glassware.

4.3.2 HNO3, 1.0 percent (v/v), for GFAAS.

Add, with stirring, 10 ml of concentrated

HNO3 to 800 ml of water. Dilute to 1,000 ml

with water. This reagent shall contain less

than 0.001 mg Cr/l.

4.3.3 Calcium Nitrate Ca(NO3)2 Solution

(10 μg Ca/ml) for GFAAS. Prepare the

solution by weighing 36 mg of Ca(NO3)2 into

a 1 l volumetric flask. Dilute with water to

1 l.

4.3.4 Matrix Modifier, for GFAAS. See

instrument manufacturer’s manual for

suggested matrix modifier.

4.3.5 Chromatographic Eluent, for IC/

PCR. The eluent used in the analytical

system is ammonium sulfate based. Prepare

by adding 6.5 ml of 29 percent ammonium

hydroxide (NH4OH) and 33 g of ammonium

sulfate ((NH4)2SO4) to 500 ml of reagent

water. Dilute to 1 l with reagent water and

mix well. Other combinations of eluents and/

or columns may be employed provided peak

resolution, as described in section 5.5,

repeatability and linearity, as described in

section 6.4.1, and analytical sensitivity are

acceptable.

4.3.6 Post-Column Reagent, for IC/PCR.

An effective post-column reagent for use with

the chromatographic eluent described in

section 4.3.5 is a diphenylcarbazide (DPC)

based system. Dissolve 0.5 g of 1,5-

diphenylcarbazide in 100 ml of ACS grade

methanol. Add 500 ml of reagent water

containing 50 ml of 96 percent

spectrophotometric grade sulfuric acid.

Dilute to 1 l with reagent water.

4.3.7 Chromium Standard Stock Solution

(1,000 mg/l). Procure a certified aqueous

standard or dissolve 2.829 g of potassium

dichromate (K2Cr2O7,) in water and dilute to

1 l.

4.3.8 Calibration Standards for GFAAS.

Chromium solutions for GFAAS calibration

shall be prepared to contain 1.0 percent (v/

v) HNO3. The zero standard shall be 1.0

percent (v/v) HNO3. Calibration standards

should be prepared daily by diluting the Cr

standard stock solution (section 4.3.7) with

1.0 percent HNO3. Use at least four standards

to make the calibration curve. Suggested

levels are 0, 5, 50, and 100 μg Cr/l.

4.3.9 Calibration Standards for ICP or IC/

PCR. Prepare calibration standards for ICP or

IC/PCR by diluting the Cr standard stock

solution (section 4.3.7) with 0.1 N NaOH or

0.1 N NaHCO3, whichever was used as the

impinger absorbing solution, to achieve a

matrix similar to the actual field samples.

Suggested levels are 0, 25, 50, and 100 μg Cr/

l for ICP, and 0, 0.5, 5, and 10 μg Cr∂6/l for

IC/PCR.

4.4 Glassware Cleaning Reagents.

4.4.1 HNO3, Concentrated. The ACS

reagent grade or equivalent.

4.4.2 Water. Reagent water that conforms

to ASTM Specification D1193–77, Type II,

(incorporated by reference—see § 63.14).

4.4.3 HNO3, 10 percent (v/v). Add with

stirring 500 ml of concentrated HNO3 to a

flask containing approximately 4,000 ml of

water. Dilute to 5,000 ml with water. Mix

well. The reagent shall contain less than 2 μg

Cr/l.

5. Procedure

5.1 Sampling. (a) Same as Method 5,

section 4.1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A),

except omit the filter and filter holder from

the sampling train, use a glass nozzle and

probe liner, do not heat the probe, place 100

ml of 0.1 N NaOH or 0.1 N NaHCO3 in each

of the first two impingers, and record the

data for each run on a data sheet such as the

one shown in Figure 306–2.

(b) Clean all glassware prior to sampling in

hot soapy water designed for laboratory

cleaning of glassware. Next, rinse the

glassware three times with tap water,

followed by three additional rinses with

reagent water. Then soak all glassware in 10

percent (v/v) HNO3 solution for a minimum

of 4 hours, rinse three times with reagent

water, and allowed to air dry. Cover all

glassware openings where contamination can

occur with Parafilm, or equivalent, until the

sampling train is assembled for sampling.

(c) If the sample is going to be analyzed for

Cr∂6 using IC/PCR, determine the pH of the

solution in the first impinger at the end of the

sampling run using a pH indicator strip. The

pH of the solution should be greater than 8.5.

If not, the concentration of the NaOH or

NaHCO3 impinger absorbing solution should

be increased to 0.5 N and the sample should

be rerun.

5.2 Sample Recovery. Follow the basic

procedures of Method 5, section 4.2, with the

exceptions noted below; a filter is not

recovered from this train.

5.2.1 Container No. 1. Measure the

volume of the liquid in the first, second, and

third impingers and quantitatively transfer

into a labelled sample container. Use

approximately 200 to 300 ml of 0.1 N NaOH

or 0.1 N NaHCO3 to rinse the probe nozzle,

probe liner, three impingers, and connecting

glassware; add this rinse to the same

container.

5.2.2 Container No. 2 (Reagent Blank).

Place approximately 500 ml of 0.1 N NaOH

or 0.1 N NaHCO3 absorbing solution in a

labeled sample container.

5.2.3 Sample Filtration for IC/PCR. If the

sample is to be analyzed for Cr∂6 by IC/PCR,

it must be filtered immediately following

recovery to remove any insoluble matter.

Nitrogen gas may be used as a pressure assist

to the filtration process. Filter the entire

contents of Container No. 1 through a 0.45-

μm acetate filter (or equivalent), and collect

the filtrate in a 1,000 ml graduated cylinder.

Rinse the sample container with reagent

water three separate times, pass these rinses

through the filter, and add the rinses to the

sample filtrate. Determine the final volume of

the filtrate and rinses and return them to the

rinsed polyethylene sample container.

5.2.4 Sample Preservation. Refrigerate

samples upon receipt. (Containers Nos. 1 and

2).

5.3 Sample Preparation and Analysis for

GFAAS. For analysis by GFAAS, an acid

digestion of the alkaline impinger solution is

required. Two types of blanks are required

for the analysis. The calibration blank is used

in establishing the analytical curve, and the

reagent blank is used to assess possible

contamination resulting from the sample

processing. The 1.0 percent HNO3 is the

calibration blank. The 0.1 N NaOH solution

or the 0.1 N NaHCO3 from section 5.2.2 is the

reagent blank. The reagent blank must be

carried through the complete analytical

procedure, including the acid digestion, and

must contain the same acid concentration in

the final solution as the sample solutions.

5.3.1 Acid Digestion for GFAAS. (a) In a

beaker, add 10 ml of concentrated HNO3 to

a sample aliquot of 100 ml taken for analysis.

Cover the beaker with a watch glass. Place

the beaker on a hot plate and reflux the

sample down to near dryness. Add another

5 ml of concentrated HNO3 to complete the

digestion. Carefully reflux the sample volume

down to near dryness. Wash down the beaker

walls and watch glass with reagent water.

The final concentration of HNO3 in the

solution should be 1 percent (v/v). Transfer

the digested sample to a 50 ml volumetric

flask. Add 0.5 ml of concentrated HNO3, and

1 ml of the 10 μg/ml of Ca (NO3)2.

(b) Dilute to 50 ml with reagent water. A

different final volume may be used, based on

the expected Cr concentration, but the HNO3

concentration must be maintained at 1

percent (v/v).

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4983

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
4984 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

5.3.2 Sample Analysis by GFAAS. (a) The

357.9-nm wavelength line shall be used.

Follow the manufacturer’s operating

instructions for all other spectrophotometer

parameters.

(b) Furnace parameters suggested by the

manufacturer should be employed as

guidelines. Since temperature-sensing

mechanisms and temperature controllers can

vary between instruments and/or with time,

the validity of the furnace parameters must

be periodically confirmed by systematically

altering the furnace parameters while

analyzing a standard. In this manner, losses

of analyte due to higher-than-necessary

temperature settings or losses in sensitivity

due to less than optimum settings can be

minimized. Similar verification of furnace

parameters may be required for complex

sample matrices. Calibrate the GFAAS

system following the procedures specified in

section 6.

(c) Inject a measured aliquot of digested

sample into the furnace and atomize. If the

concentration found exceeds the calibration

range, the sample should be diluted with the

calibration blank solution (1.0 percent HNO3)

and reanalyzed. Consult the operator’s

manual for suggested injection volumes. The

use of multiple injections can improve

accuracy and help detect furnace pipetting

errors.

(d) Analyze a minimum of one matrixmatched reagent blank per sample batch to

determine if contamination or any memory

effects are occurring. Analyze a calibration

blank and a midpoint calibration check

standard after approximately every 10 sample

injections.

(e) Calculate the Cr concentrations:

(1) By the method of standard additions

(see operator’s manual),

(2) From the calibration curve, or

(3) Directly from the instrument’s

concentration readout. All dilution or

concentration factors must be taken into

account. All results should be reported in μg

Cr/ml with up to three significant figures.

5.4 Sample Analysis by ICP. (a) The ICP

measurement is performed directly on the

alkaline impinger solution; acid digestion is

not necessary provided the samples and

standards are matrix matched. However, ICP

should only be used when the solution

analyzed has a Cr concentration greater than

35 μg/l.

(b) Two types of blanks are required for the

analysis. The calibration blank is used in

establishing the analytical curve, and the

reagent blank is used to assess possible

contamination resulting from sample

processing. Use either 0.1 N NaOH or 0.1 N

NaHCO3, whichever was used for the

impinger absorbing solution, for the

calibration blank. The calibration blank can

be prepared fresh in the laboratory; it does

not have to be from the same batch of

solution that was used in the field. Prepare

a sufficient quantity to flush the system

between standards and samples. The reagent

blank (section 5.2.2) is a sample of the

impinger solution used for sample collection

that is collected in the field during the testing

program.

(c) Set up the instrument with proper

operating parameters including wavelength,

background correction settings (if necessary),

and interfering element correction settings (if

necessary). The instrument must be allowed

to become thermally stable before beginning

performance of measurements (usually

requiring at least 30 min of operation prior

to calibration). During this warmup period,

the optical calibration and torch position

optimization may be performed (consult the

operator’s manual).

(d) Calibrate the instrument according to

the instrument manufacturer’s recommended

procedures, and the procedures specified in

section 6.3. Before analyzing the samples,

reanalyze the highest calibration standard as

if it were a sample. Concentration values

obtained should not deviate from the actual

values by more than 5 percent, or the

established control limits, whichever is lower

(see sections 6 and 7). If they do, follow the

recommendations of the instrument

manufacturer to correct for this condition.

(e) Flush the system with the calibration

blank solution for at least 1 min before the

analysis of each sample or standard. Analyze

the midpoint calibration standard and the

calibration blank after each 10 samples. Use

the average intensity of multiple exposures

for both standardization and sample analysis

to reduce random error.

(f) Dilute and reanalyze samples that are

more concentrated than the linear calibration

limit or use an alternate, less sensitive Cr

wavelength for which quality control data are

already established.

(g) If dilutions are performed, the

appropriate factors must be applied to

sample values. All results should be reported

in μg Cr/ml with up to three significant

figures.

5.5 Sample Analyses by IC/PCR. (a) The

Cr∂6 content of the sample filtrate is

determined by IC/PCR. To increase

sensitivity for trace levels of chromium, a

preconcentration system is also used in

conjunction with the IC/PCR.

(b) Prior to preconcentration and/or

analysis, filter all field samples through a

0.45-μm filter. This filtration should be

conducted just prior to sample injection/

analysis.

(c) The preconcentration is accomplished

by selectively retaining the analyte on a solid

absorbent (as described in section 3.4.3.3),

followed by removal of the analyte from the

absorbent. Inject the sample into a sample

loop of the desired size (use repeated

loadings or a larger size loop for greater

sensitivity). The Cr∂6 is collected on the

resin bed of the column. Switch the injection

valve so that the eluent displaces the

concentrated Cr∂6 sample, moving it off the

preconcentration column and onto the IC

anion separation column. After separation

from other sample components, the Cr∂6

forms a specific complex in the post-column

reactor with the DPC reaction solution, and

the complex is detected by visible absorbance

at a wavelength of 520 nm. The amount of

absorbance measured is proportional to the

concentration of the Cr∂6 complex formed.

Compare the IC retention time and the

absorbance of the Cr∂6 complex with known

Cr∂6 standards analyzed under identical

conditions to provide both qualitative and

quantitative analyses.

(d) Two types of blanks are required for the

analysis. The calibration blank is used in

establishing the analytical curve, and the

reagent blank is used to assess possible

contamination resulting from sample

processing. Use either 0.1 N NaOH or 0.1 N

NaHCO3, whichever was used for the

impinger solution, for the calibration blank.

The calibration blank can be prepared fresh

in the laboratory; it does not have to be from

the same batch of solution that was used in

the field. The reagent blank (section 5.2.2) is

a sample of the impinger solution used for

sample collection that is collected in the field

during the testing program.

(e) Prior to sample analysis, establish a

stable baseline with the detector set at the

required attenuation by setting the eluent

flow rate at approximately 1 ml/min and the

post-column reagent flow rate at

approximately 0.5 ml/min. Note: As long as

the ratio of eluent flow rate to PCR flow rate

remains constant, the standard curve should

remain linear. Inject a sample of reagent

water to ensure that no Cr∂6 appears in the

water blank.

(f) First, inject the calibration standards

prepared, as described in section 4.3.9 to

cover the appropriate concentration range,

starting with the lowest standard first. Next,

inject, in duplicate, the calibration reference

standard (as described in section 7.3.1),

followed by the reagent blank (section 5.2.2),

and the field samples. Finally, repeat the

injection of the calibration standards to

assess instrument drift. Measure areas or

heights of the Cr∂6/DPC complex

chromatogram peaks. The response for

replicate, consecutive injections of samples

must be within 5 percent of the average

response, or the injection should be repeated

until the 5 percent criterion can be met. Use

the average response (peak areas or heights)

from the duplicate injections of calibration

standards to generate a linear calibration

curve. From the calibration curve, determine

the concentrations of the field samples

employing the average response from the

duplicate injections.

6. Calibration

6.1 Sampling Train Calibration. Perform

all of the calibrations described in Method 5,

section 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). The

alternate calibration procedures described in

section 7 of Method 5 (40 CFR part 60,

appendix A) may also be used.

6.2 GFAAS Calibration. Either run a

series of chromium standards and a

calibration blank and construct a calibration

curve by plotting the concentrations of the

standards against the absorbencies, or using

the method of standard additions, plot added

concentration versus absorbance. For

instruments that read directly in

concentration, set the curve corrector to read

out the proper concentration, if applicable.

This is customarily performed automatically

with most instrument computer-based data

systems.

6.2.1 GFAAS Calibration Curve. If a

calibration curve is used, it should be

prepared daily with a minimum of a

calibration blank and three standards.

Calibration standards for total chromium

should start with 1 percent v/v HNO3 with
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4985

no chromium for the calibration blank, with

appropriate increases in total chromium

concentration for the other calibration

standards (see section 4.3.9.). Calibration

standards should be prepared fresh daily.

6.3 ICP Calibration. Calibrate the

instrument according to the instrument

manufacturer’s recommended procedures,

using a calibration blank and three standards

for the initial calibration. Calibration

standards should be prepared fresh daily, as

described in section 4.3.9. Be sure that

samples and calibration standards are matrix

matched. Flush the system with the

calibration blank between each standard. Use

the average intensity of multiple exposures

for both standardization and sample analysis

to reduce random error.

6.4 IC/PCR Calibration. Prepare a

calibration curve using the calibration blank

and three calibration standards prepared

fresh daily as described in section 4.3.9. Run

the standards with the field samples as

described in section 5.5.

7. Quality Control

7.1 GFAAS Quality Control

7.1.1 GFAAS Calibration Reference

Standards. If a calibration curve is used, it

must be verified by use of at least one

calibration reference standard (made from a

reference material or other independent

standard material) at or near the mid-range of

the calibration curve. The calibration

reference standard must be measured within

10 percent of it’s true value for the curve to

be considered valid. The curve must be

validated before sample analyses are

performed.

7.1.2 GFAAS Check Standards. (a) Run a

check standard and a calibration blank after

approximately every 10 sample injections,

and at the end of the analytical run. These

standards are run, in part, to monitor the life

and performance of the graphite tube. Lack

of reproducibility or a significant change in

the signal for the check standard indicates

that the graphite tube should be replaced.

Check standards can be the mid-range

calibration standard or the reference

standard. The results of the check standard

shall agree within 10 percent of the expected

value. If not, terminate the analyses, correct

the problem, recalibrate the instrument, and

reanalyze all samples analyzed subsequent to

the last acceptable check standard analysis.

(b) The results of the calibration blank are

to agree within three standard deviations of

the mean blank value. If not, repeat the

analysis two more times and average the

results. If the average is not within three

standard deviations of the background mean,

terminate the analyses, correct the problem,

recalibrate, and reanalyze all samples

analyzed subsequent to the last acceptable

calibration blank analysis.

7.1.3 GFAAS Duplicate Samples. Run one

duplicate sample for every 20 samples, (or

one per source test, whichever is more

frequent). Duplicate samples are brought

through the whole sample preparation and

analytical process separately. Duplicate

samples shall agree within 10 percent.

7.1.4 GFAAS Matrix Spiking. Spiked

samples shall be prepared and analyzed daily

to ensure that correct procedures are being

followed and that all equipment is operating

properly. Spiked sample recovery analyses

should indicate a recovery for the Cr spike

of between 75 and 125 percent. Spikes are

added prior to any sample preparation. Cr

levels in the spiked sample should provide

final solution concentrations that fall within

the linear portion of the calibration curve.

7.1.5 GFAAS Method of Standard

Additions. Whenever sample matrix

problems are suspected and standard/sample

matrix matching is not possible or whenever

a new sample matrix is being analyzed, the

method of standard additions shall be used

for the analysis of all extracts. Section 5.4.2

of Method 12 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A)

specifies a performance test to determine if

the method of standard additions is

necessary.

7.1.6 GFAAS Reagent Blank Samples.

Analyze a minimum of one matrix-matched

reagent blank (section 5.2.2) per sample batch

to determine if contamination or memory

effects are occurring. The results should

agree within three standard deviations of the

mean blank value.

7.2 ICP Quality Control.

7.2.1 ICP Interference Check. Prepare an

interference check solution to contain known

concentrations of interfering elements that

will provide an adequate test of the

correction factors in the event of potential

spectral interferences. Two potential

interferences, iron and manganese, may be

prepared as 1,000 μg/ml and 200 μg/ml

solutions, respectively. The solutions should

be prepared in dilute HNO3 (1-5 percent).

Particular care must be taken to ensure that

the solutions and/or salts used to prepare the

solutions are of ICP grade purity (i.e., that no

measurable Cr contamination exists in the

salts/solutions). Commercially prepared

interfering element check standards are

available. Verify the interelement correction

factors every three months by analyzing the

interference check solution. The correction

factors are calculated according to the

instrument manufacturer’s directions. If

interelement correction factors are used

properly, no false Cr should be detected.

7.2.2 ICP Calibration Reference

Standards. Prepare a calibration reference

standard in the same alkaline matrix as the

calibration standards; it should be at least 10

times the instrumental detection limit. This

reference standard should be prepared from

a different Cr stock solution source than that

used for preparation of the calibration curve

standards and is used to verify the accuracy

of the calibration curve. Prior to sample

analysis, analyze at least one reference

standard. The calibration reference standard

must be measured within 10 percent of it’s

true value for the curve to be considered

valid. The curve must be validated before

sample analyses are performed.

7.2.3 ICP Check Standards. Run a check

standard and a calibration blank after every

10 samples, and at the end of the analytical

run. Check standards can be the mid-range

calibration standard or the reference

standard. The results of the check standard

shall agree within 10 percent of the expected

value; if not, terminate the analyses, correct

the problem, recalibrate the instrument, and

rerun all samples analyzed subsequent to the

last acceptable check standard analysis. The

results of the calibration blank are to agree

within three standard deviations of the mean

blank value. If not, repeat the analysis two

more times and average the results. If the

average is not within three standard

deviations of the background mean,

terminate the analyses, correct the problem,

recalibrate, and reanalyze all samples

analyzed subsequent to the last acceptable

calibration blank analysis.

7.2.4 ICP Duplicate Samples. Analyze one

duplicate sample for every 20 samples, (or

one per source test, whichever is more

frequent). Duplicate samples are brought

through the whole sample preparation and

analytical process. Duplicate samples shall

agree within 10 percent.

7.2.5 ICP Reagent Blank Samples.

Analyze a minimum of one matrix-matched

reagent blank (section 5.2.2) per sample batch

to determine if contamination or memory

effects are occurring. The results should

agree within three standard deviations of the

mean blank value.

7.3 IC/PCR Quality Control.

7.3.1 IC/PCR Calibration Reference

Standards. Prepare a calibration reference

standard in the same alkaline matrix as the

calibration standards at a concentration that

is at or near the mid-point of the calibration

curve. This reference standard should be

prepared from a different Cr stock solution

source than that used for preparing the

calibration curve standards. The reference

standard is used to verify the accuracy of the

calibration curve. Prior to sample analysis,

analyze at least one reference standard. The

results of this analysis of the reference

standard must be within 10 percent of the

true value of the reference standard for the

calibration curve to be considered valid. The

curve must be validated before sample

analyses are performed.

7.3.2 IC/PCR Check Standards. (a) Run

the calibration blank and calibration

standards with the field samples as described

in section 5.5. For each standard, determine

the peak areas (recommended) or the peak

heights, calculate the average response from

the duplicate injections, and plot the average

response against the Cr+6 concentration in

μg/l. The individual responses for each

calibration standard determined before and

after field sample analysis must be within 5

percent of the average response for the

analysis to be valid. If the 5 percent criteria

is exceeded, excessive drift and/or

instrument degradation may have occurred,

and must be corrected before further analyses

are performed.

(b) Employing linear regression, calculate a

predicted value for each calibration standard

using the average response for the duplicate

injections. Each predicted value must be

within 7 percent of the actual value for the

calibration curve to be considered acceptable.

If not acceptable, remake and/or rerun the

calibration standards. If the calibration curve

is still unacceptable, reduce the range of the

curve.

7.3.3 IC/PCR Duplicate Samples. Analyze

one duplicate sample for every 20 samples,

(or one per source test, whichever is more

frequent). Duplicate samples are brought

through the whole sample preparation and
4986 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

analytical process. Duplicate samples shall

agree within 10 percent.

7.3.4 ICP Reagent Blank Samples.

Analyze a minimum of one matrix-matched

reagent blank (section 5.2.2) per sample batch

to determine if contamination or memory

effects are occurring. The results should

agree within three standard deviations of the

mean blank value.

8. Emission Calculations

Carry out the calculations, retaining one

extra decimal figure beyond that of the

acquired data. Round off figures after final

calculations.

8.1 Total Cr in Sample. Calculate MCr, the

total μg Cr in each sample, as follows:

MCr = (Vml) (CS) (F) (D) Eq.306-1

where:

Vml = Volume of impinger contents plus

rinses, ml.

CS = Concentration of Cr in sample solution,

μg Cr/ml.

F = Dilution factor.

= Volume of aliquot after dilution, ml;

Volume of aliquot before dilution, ml

D = Digestion factor.

= Volume of sample aliquot after digestion,

ml; Volume of sample aliquot submitted

to digestion, ml

8.2 Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature

and Average Orifice Pressure Drop. Same as

Method 5, section 6.2.

8.3 Dry Gas Volume, Volume of Water

Vapor, Moisture Content. Same as Method 5,

sections 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5, respectively.

8.4 Cr Emission Concentration. Calculate

CCr, the Cr concentration in the stack gas, in

mg/dscm on a dry basis, corrected to

standard conditions, as follows:

CCr=(10¥3 mg/μg) (MCr/Vm(std)) Eq. 306–2

where:

Vm(std)=Gas sample volume measured by the

dry gas meter, corrected to dry standard

conditions, dscm.

8.5 Isokinetic Variation, Acceptable

Results. Same as Method 5, sections 6.11 and

6.12, respectively.

9. Bibliography

1. ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid

Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,’’ U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Publication SW–846, 2nd Edition, July 1982.

2. Cox, X.B., R.W. Linton, and F.E. Butler.

Determination of Chromium Speciation in

Environmental Particles—A Multitechnique

Study of Ferrochrome Smelter Dust.

Accepted for publication in Environmental

Science and Technology.

3. Same as Bibliography of Method 5,

Citations 2 to 5 and 7.

4. California Air Resources Board,

‘‘Determination of Total Chromium and

Hexavalent Chromium Emissions from

Stationary Sources.’’ Method 425, September

12, 1990.

5. ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid

Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods’’, U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Publication SW–846, 3rd Edition, November

1986 as amended by Update I , November

1990.

Method 306A—Determination of Chromium

Emissions From Decorative and Hard

Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing

Operations

1. Applicability and Principle

1.1 Applicability. This method applies to

the determination of chromium (Cr) in

emissions from decorative and hard

chromium electroplating facilities and

anodizing operations. The method is less

expensive and less complex to conduct than

Method 306 of this appendix. Correctly

applied, the precision and bias of the sample

results will be comparable to those obtained

with the isokinetic Method 306 of this

appendix. This method is applicable under

ambient moisture, air, and temperature

conditions.

1.2 Principle. A sample is extracted from

the source at a constant sampling rate

determined by a critical orifice and collected

in a probe and impingers. The sampling time

at the sampling traverse points is varied

according to the stack gas velocity at each

point to obtain a proportional sample. The

concentration is determined by the same

analytical procedures used in Method 306 of

this appendix: inductively-coupled plasma

emission spectrometry (ICP), graphite furnace

atomic absorption spectrometry (GFAAS), or

ion chromatography with a post-column

reactor (IC/PCR).

2. Range, Sensitivity, Precision, and

Interferences

Same as Method 306, section 2 of this

appendix.

3. Apparatus

Note: Mention of trade names or specific

products does not constitute endorsement by

the Environmental Protection Agency.

3.1 Sampling Train. A schematic of the

sampling train is shown in Figure 306A–1.

The components of the train are available

commercially, but some fabrication and

assembly are required. If Method 306

equipment is available, the sampling train

may be assembled as specified in Method 306

of this appendix and the sampling rate of the

meter box set at the delta H@ specified for

the calibrated orifice; this train is then

operated as specified in this method.

3.1.1 Probe Nozzle/Tubing and Sheath.

Use approximately 1/4 in. inner diameter (ID)

glass or rigid plastic tubing about 8 in. long

with a short 90° bend at one end to form the

nozzle. Grind a slight taper on the nozzle end

before making the bend. Attach the nozzle to

flexible tubing of sufficient length to collect

a sample from the stack. Use a straight piece

of larger diameter rigid tubing (such as metal

conduit or plastic water pipe) to form a

sheath that begins about 1 in. from the 90°

bend on the nozzle and encases the flexible

tubing.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4987

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
4988 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

3.1.2 S-Type Pitot. Same as Method 2,

section 3 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).

3.1.3 Sample Line. Use thick wall flexible

plastic tubing (e.g., polyethylene,

polypropylene, or polyvinylchloride) about

1⁄4 in. to 3⁄8 in. ID to connect the train

components. A combination of rigid plastic

tubing and thin wall flexible tubing may be

used as long as neither tubing collapses when

leak-checking the train. Metal tubing cannot

be used.

3.1.4 Impingers. One quart capacity

‘‘Mason’’ glass canning jars with vacuum seal

lids are used. Three impingers are required:

the first is for collecting the absorbing

solution, the second is empty and is used to

collect any absorbing solution carried over

from the first impinger, and the third

contains the drying agent. Install bleak-tight

inlet and outlet tubes in the lids of each

impinger for assembly with the train. The

tubes may be made of approximately 1⁄4 in.

ID glass or rigid plastic tubing. For the inlet

tube of the first impinger, heat the glass or

plastic tubing and draw until the tubing

separates. Cut the tip off until the tip orifice

is 3⁄32 in. in diameter. When fabricating the

first impinger, place the tip orifice 3⁄16 in.

above the bottom of the jar when assembled.

For the second impinger, the inlet tube need

not be drawn and sized, but the tip should

be approximately 2 in. above the bottom of

the jar. The inlet tube of the third impinger

should extend to about 1⁄2 in. above the

bottom of the jar. Locate the outlet tube end

of all impingers about 1⁄2 in. beneath the

bottom of the lid.

3.1.5 Manometer. Inclined/vertical type,

or equivalent device, as described in section

2.2 of Method 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix

A).

3.1.6 Critical Orifice. The critical orifice

is a small restriction in the sample line

(approximately 1⁄16 in. in diameter) that is

located upstream of the vacuum pump and

sets the sample rate at about 0.75 cfm. An

orifice can be made of 3⁄32 in. brass tubing

approximately 9⁄16 in. long sealed inside

larger diameter, approximately 5⁄16 in., brass

tubing to serve as a critical orifice giving a

constant sample flow. Materials other than

brass can be used to construct the critical

orifice as long as the flow through the

sampling train is approximately 0.75 cfm.

3.1.7 Connecting Hardware. Standard

pipe and fittings, 1⁄4 in. or 1⁄8 in., are used

to install the vacuum pump and dry gas

meter in the sampling train.

3.1.8 Pump Oiler. A glass oil reservoir

with a wick mounted at the vacuum pump

inlet lubricates the pump vanes. The oiler

should be an inline type and not vented to

the atmosphere.

3.1.9 Vacuum Pump. Gast Model 0522–

V103–G18DX, or equivalent, capable of

delivering at least 1.5 cfm at 15 in. Hg

vacuum.

3.1.10 Oil Trap. An empty glass oil

reservoir without wick is mounted at pump

outlet to prevent oil from reaching the dry

gas meter.

3.1.11 Dry Gas Meter. A Rockwell model

175-s test meter, or equivalent, with a

thermometer installed to monitor meter

temperature. The dry gas meter must be

capable of measuring volume to within 2

percent.

3.2 Sample Recovery.

3.2.1 Wash Bottles. These are glass or

inert plastic, 500 or 1000 ml, with spray tube.

3.2.2 Sample Containers. The first mason

jar impinger of the sampling train serves as

the sample container. A new lid and plastic

wrap are substituted for the impinger inlet/

outlet assembly.

3.3 Analysis. Same as Method 306,

section 3.3 of this appendix.

4. Reagents

4.1 Sampling. Same as Method 306,

section 4.1 of this appendix.

4.2 Sample Recovery. Same as Method

306, section 4.2 of this appendix.

5. Procedure

5.1 Sampling.

5.1.1 Pretest Preparation.

5.1.1.1 Port Location. Locate the sampling

ports as specified in section 2.1 of Method 1

(40 CFR part 60, appendix A). Use a total of

24 sampling points for round ducts and 25

points for rectangular ducts. Locate the

sampling points as specified in section 2.3 of

Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A).

Mark the pitot and sampling probe with thin

strips of tape to permit velocity and sample

traversing. For ducts less than 12 in. in

diameter, use a total of 16 points.

5.1.1.2 Velocity Pressure Traverse. (a)

Perform a velocity pressure traverse before

the first sample run. Figure 306A-2 may be

used to record velocity pressure data. If

testing occurs over several days, perform the

traverse at the beginning of each day. Perform

velocity pressure traverses as specified in

section 3 of Method 2 (40 CFR part 60,

appendix A), but record only the ∆p (velocity

head) values for each sampling point.

(b) Check for cyclonic flow during the first

traverse to verify that it does not exist; if

cyclonic flow does exist, make sure that the

absolute average angle of misalignment does

not exceed 20°. If the average angle of

misalignment exceeds 20° at an outlet

location, install straightening vanes to

eliminate the cyclonic flow. If it is necessary

to test an inlet location where cyclonic flow

exists, it may not be possible to install

straightening vanes. In this case, a variation

of the alignment method must be used. This

must be approved by the Administrator.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4989

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
4990 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

5.1.1.3 Point Sampling Times. Since the

sampling rate of the train is held constant by

the critical orifice, it is necessary to calculate

specific sampling times for each point in

order to obtain a proportional sample. If all

sampling can be completed in a single day,

it is necessary to calculate the point sampling

times only once. If sampling occurs over

several days, recalculate the point sample

times each day using velocity traverse data

obtained earlier in the day. Determine the

average of the ∆p values obtained during the

velocity traverse (Figure 306A–2). Calculate

the sampling times for each point using

Equation 306A–1. Convert the decimal parts

of minutes to seconds. If the stack diameter

is less than 12 in., use 7.5 minutes in place

of 5 minutes in the equation and 16 sampling

points.

Minutes at po n Po n p

p

utes Eq A

avg

int

int = min . ( ) × −∆

∆

5 306 1

Where:

n=Sampling point number.

∆p=Velocity head measured by Type-S pitot

tube, in. H2O

5.1.1.4 Preparation of Sampling Train.

Assemble the sampling train as shown in

Figure 306A–1. Secure the nozzle-liner

assembly to the sheath to prevent slipping

when sampling. Before charging, rinse the

first mason jar impinger with either 0.1 N

sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or 0.1 N sodium

bicarbonate (NaHCO3); discard the solution.

Put 250 ml of 0.1 N NaOH or 0.1 N NaHCO3

absorbing solution into the first mason jar

impinger. Similarly, rinse the second mason

jar impinger and leave empty. Put silica gel

into the third mason jar impinger until the

impinger is half full. Place the impingers into

an ice bath and check to ensure that the lids

are tight.

5.1.1.5 Train Leak Check Procedure. Wait

until the ice has cooled the impingers before

sampling. Next, seal the nozzle with a finger

covered by a piece of clear plastic wrap and

turn on the pump. The vacuum in the line

between the pump and the critical orifice

must be at least 15 in. Hg. Observe any leak

rate on the dry gas meter. The leak rate

should not exceed 0.02 cfm.

5.1.2 Sampling Train Operation.

5.1.2.1 Record all pertinent process and

sampling data on the data sheet (see Figure

306A-3). Ensure that the process operation is

suitable for sample collection.

BILLING CODE 6860–50–P
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4991

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
4992 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

5.1.2.2 Place the probe/nozzle into the

duct at the first sampling point and turn on

the pump. A minimum vacuum of 15 in. Hg

or 0.47 atmosphere between the critical

orifice and pump is required to maintain

critical flow. Sample for the time interval

previously determined for that point. Move

to the second point and sample for the time

interval determined for that point; sample all

points on the traverse in this manner. Keep

ice around the impingers during the run.

Complete the traverse and turn off the pump.

Move to the next sampling port and repeat.

Record the final dry gas meter reading.

(NOTE: If an approximate mass emission rate

is desired, record the stack temperature

before and after the run.)

5.1.2.3 Post Test Leak Check. Remove the

probe assembly and flexible tubing from the

first impinger. Do not cover the nozzle. Seal

the inlet tube of the first impinger with a

finger covered by clear plastic wrap and turn

on the pump. The vacuum in the line

between the pump and the critical orifice

must be at least 15 in. Hg. Observe any leak

rate on the dry gas meter. If the leak rate

exceeds 0.02 cfm, reject the run. If the leak

rate is acceptable, take the probe assembly

and impinger assembly to the sample

recovery area.

5.2 Sample Recovery.

5.2.1 Container No. 1. (a) After the train

has been moved to the sample recovery area,

disconnect the tubing that joins the first

impinger with the second.

(b) The first impinger jar is also used as the

sample container jar. Unscrew the lid from

the first impinger jar. Lift the inlet/outlet

tube assembly almost out of the jar, and using

the wash bottle, rinse the outside of the

impinger tip that was immersed in the

impinger jar with extra absorbing solution;

rinse the inside of the tip as well.

(c) Recover the second impinger by

removing the lid and pouring any contents

from the second impinger into the first

impinger. Rinse the second impinger

including the inside and outside of the

impinger stem as well as any connecting

plastic tubing with extra absorbing solution

and place the rinse into the first impinger.

(d) Hold the nozzle and connecting plastic

tubing in a vertical position so that the tubing

forms a ‘‘U.’’ Using the wash bottle, partially

fill the tubing with sampling reagent. Raise

and lower the end of the plastic tubing

several times to cause the reagent to contact

the major portion of the internal parts of the

assembly thoroughly. Do not raise the

solution level too high or part of the sample

will be lost. Place the nozzle end of the

assembly over the mouth of the first impinger

jar (sample container) and elevate the plastic

tubing so that the solution flows rapidly out

of the nozzle. Perform this procedure three

times. Next, repeat the recovery procedure

but allow the solution to flow rapidly out the

open end of the plastic tubing into the first

impinger jar.

(e) Place a piece of clear plastic wrap over

the mouth of the first impinger jar. Use a

standard lid and band assembly to seal the

jar. Label the jar with the sample number and

mark the liquid level to gauge any losses

during handling.

5.2.2 Container No. 2 (Reagent Blank).

Place approximately 500 ml of the 0.1 N

NaOH or 0.1 N NaHCO3 absorbing solution

in a labeled sample container.

5.2.3 Sample Filtration for IC/PCR. If the

sample is to be analyzed for Cr∂6 by IC/PCR,

it must be filtered immediately following

recovery as described in section 5.2.3 of

Method 306 of this appendix.

5.3 Analysis. Sample preparation and

analysis procedures are identical to Method

306, section 5.3 of this appendix.

6. Calibration

6.1 Dry Gas Meter. (a) Dry gas meter

calibrations may be performed by either the

manufacturer, a firm who provides

calibration services, or the tester. The dry gas

meter calibration coefficient (Ym) must be

determined prior to initial use of the meter,

and must be checked following each field

use.

(b) If the dry gas meter is new, the

manufacturer will have specified the Ym for

the meter. The manufacturer may also have

included a calibration orifice and a data sheet

with the meter that may be used for

calibration purposes. The sheet will specify

a standard cubic foot volume and a sample

time, and these values were determined

when the orifice was used to set the initial

Ym for the meter. The Ym may be checked by

disconnecting the critical orifice in the

sampling train and replacing it with the

calibration orifice. The inlet side of the

calibration orifice is open to the atmosphere

and is not reconnected to the sample train.

Record the initial dry gas meter volume and

meter temperature. Turn on the pump and

operate it for the number of minutes

specified by the manufacturer’s data sheet.

Stop the pump and record the final dry gas

meter volume and temperature. Subtract the

start volume from the stop volume and

average the temperatures. Check the Ym for

the dry gas meter after the test by using the

following equation:

Y

Ft T

Ft P

m m

pt bar

= ( ) +

( ) ( )

.

.

3

3

460

17 647

Where:

Ft.3

m=Cubic feet given by meter manufacturer

Tm=Temperature of meter in degrees

Fahrenheit

Ft3

pt=Cubic feet from dry gas meter, post test

Pbar=Barometric pressure in inches of

mercury

Compare the Ym just calculated with the

Ym given by the manufacturer:

Y manufacturer

Y calculated after test

m

m

( )

( )

If this value is between 0.95 and 1.05, the

Ym of the meter is acceptable. If the value lies

outside the specified range, the test series

shall either be voided, or calculations for the

test series shall be performed using

whichever meter coefficient value (i.e., before

and after) that gives the lower value of total

sample volume. Return the dry gas meter to

the manufacturer for recalibration. The

calibration may also be conducted as

specified in section 5.3.1 or section 7 of

Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A),

except that it is only necessary to check the

calibration at an approximate flow rate of

0.75 cfm. The calibration of the dry gas meter

must be checked after each field use in the

same manner. If the values of Ym obtained

before and after a test series differ by more

than 5%, the test series shall either be

voided, or calculations for the test series

shall be performed using whichever meter

coefficient value (i.e., before or after) that

gives the lower value of total sample volume.

6.2 GFAA Spectrometer. Same as Method

306, section 6.2 of this appendix.

6.3 ICP Spectrometer. Same as Method

306, section 6.3 of this appendix.

7. Quality Control

Same as Method 306, section 7 of this

appendix.

8. Calculations

8.1 Pollutant Concentration. Calculate

Ccr, the Cr concentration in the stack gas, in

mg/dscm on a dry basis as follows:

C

M T

Y V P

Cr Eq A Cr m

m m bar

= ( )( ) +

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) − 460

499 8

306 2 . .

where: MCr=Amount of Cr in sample from Method

306 of this appendix, Eq. 306-1, μg.

Tm=Dry gas meter temperature, °F.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 4993

Ym=Dry gas meter correction factor,

dimensionless.

Vm=Dry gas meter volume, ft3.

Pbar=Barometric pressure, in. Hg.

8.2 Approximate Mass Emission Rate

(Optional). Calculate an approximate mass

emission rate of Cr in kg/hr using the

following equation:

kg hr C r p

T

P

Cr Eq A

avg

s

bar

/ . . = ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) . ( ) +

( ) ( )

0 0001597 − 460

28 73

306 3 2 ∆

where:

r=Radius of stack, in.

(√∆p)avg=Average of √∆p values.

Ts=Stack temperature, °F.

Pbar=Barometric pressure, in. Hg.

CCr=Concentration of Cr, mg/dscm.

Note: The emission rate calculated using

Equation 306A–3 is based on an assumed

moisture content of 2%.

9. Bibliography

1. Clay, F.R. Memo, Impinger Collection

Efficiency—Mason Jars vs. Greenburg-Smith

Impingers, Dec. 1989.

2. Segall, R.R., W.G. DeWees, F.R. Clay,

and J.W. Brown. Development of Screening

Methods for Use in Chromium Emissions

Measurement and Regulations Enforcement.

In: Proceedings of the 1989 EPA/A&WMA

International Symposium—Measurement of

Toxic and Related Air Pollutants, A&WMA

Publication VIP–13, EPA Report No. 600/9–

89–060, p. 785.

3. Clay, F.R. Chromium Sampling Method.

In: Proceedings of the 1990 EPA/A&WMA

International Symposium—Measurement of

Toxic and Related Air Pollutants, A&WMA

Publication VIP–17, EPA Report No. 600/9–

90–026, p. 576.

4. Clay, F.R. Proposed Sampling Method

306A for the Determination of Hexavalent

Chromium Emissions from Electroplating

and Anodizing Facilities. In: Proceedings of

the 1992 EPA/A&WMA International

Symposium—Measurement of Toxic and

Related Air Pollutants, A&WMA Publication

VIP–25, EPA Report No. 600/R–92/131, p.

209.

Method 306–B—Surface Tension

Measurement and Recordkeeping for

Chromium Plating Tanks Used at

Electroplating and Anodizing Facilities

1. Applicability and Principle

1.1 Applicability. This method is

applicable to all decorative plating and

anodizing operations where a wetting agent

is used in the tank as the primary mechanism

for reducing emissions from the surface of

the solution.

1.2 Principle. During an electroplating or

anodizing operation, gas bubbles generated

during the process rise to the surface of the

tank liquid and burst. Upon bursting, tiny

droplets of chromic acid become entrained in

ambient air. The addition of a wetting agent

to the tank bathreduces the surface tension of

the liquid and diminishes the formation of

these droplets.

2. Apparatus

2.1 Stalagmometer. Any commercially

available stalagmometer or equivalent surface

tension measuring device may be used to

measure the surface tension of the plating or

anodizing tank liquid.

2.2 Preciser tensiometer. A Preciser

tensiometer may be used to measure the

surface tension of the tank liquid provided

the procedures specified in ASTM Method D

1331–89, Standard Test Methods for Surface

and Interfacial Tension of Solutions of

Surface Active Agents (incorporated by

reference—see § 63.14) are followed.

3. Procedure

3.1 The surface tension of the tank bath

may be measured by using a Preciser

tensiometer, a stalagmometer or any other

device suitable for measuring surface tension

in dynes per centimeter. If the Preciser

tensiometer is used, the instructions given in

ASTM Method D 1331–89, Standard Test

Methods for Surface and Interfacial Tension

of Solutions of Surface Active Agents

(incorporated by reference—see § 63.14) must

be followed. If a stalagmometer or other

device is used to measure surface tension, the

instructions that came with the measuring

device must be followed.

3.2 (a) Measurements of the bath surface

tension are done using a progressive system

which minimizes the number of surface

tension measurements required when the

proper surface tension is maintained.

Initially, measurements must be made every

4 hours of tank operation for the first 40

hours of tank operation after the compliance

date. Once there are no exceedances during

40 hours of tank operation, measurements

may be conducted once every 8 hours of tank

operation. Once there are no exceedances

during 40 hours of tank operation,

measurements may be conducted once every

40 hours of tank operation on an on-going

basis, until an exceedance occurs. The

maximum time interval for measurements is

once every 40 hours of tank operation.

(b) If a measurement of the surface tension

of the solution is above the 40 dynes per

centimeter limit, the time interval reverts

back to the original monitoring schedule of

once every 4 hours. A subsequent decrease in

frequency would then be allowed according

to the previous paragraph.

4. Recordkeeping

4.1 Log book of surface tension

measurements and fume suppressant

additions. The surface tension of the plating

or anodizing tank bath must be measured as

specified in section 3.2. The measurements

must be recorded in the log book. In addition

to the record of surface tension

measurements, the frequency of fume

suppressant maintenance additions and the

amount of fume suppressant added during

each maintenance addition will be recorded

in the log book. The log book will be readily

available for inspection by regulatory

personnel.

4.2 Instructions for apparatus used in

measuring surface tension. Also included

with the log book must be a copy of the

instructions for the apparatus used for

measuring the surface tension of the plating

or anodizing bath. If a Preciser tensiometer is

used, a copy of ASTM Method D 1331–89,

Standard Methods for Surface and Interfacial

Tension of Solutions of Surface Active

Agents (incorporated by reference—see

§ 63.14) must be included with the log book.

[FR Doc. 95–65 Filed 1–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P