Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
For information about the applicability of these NESHAP to a particular entity, contact the appropriate person listed in Table 1 to this preamble.
This action presents the results and final decisions based on EPA's review of two national regulations for hazardous air pollutants. Specifically, pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA has completed risk and technology reviews (RTRs) for four source categories covered by two separate regulations.
Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review these regulations (i.e., national emissions standards) and revise them as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies) no less frequently than every 8 years. Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires EPA to assess the remaining risks due to emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from these source categories and determine whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health within 8 years of promulgation of the original standards. The two regulations addressed in this action are the following: National Emissions Standards for Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Steel Pickling—HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants.
In addition to the reviews described above, the EPA also reviewed these rules to determine if any other corrections or clarifications were needed pursuant to other Sections the Clean Air Act. As described below, based on all these reviews, the EPA has determined it is appropriate and necessary to promulgate some amendments to these rules.
With regard to the National Emissions Standards for Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks, based on the reviews under Sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f), the EPA has determined it is appropriate to promulgate emissions limits and surface tension limits that are moderately lower than the limits in the current regulation for new and existing hard chromium electroplating, decorative chromium electroplating, and chromium anodizing sources. These amendments will reduce chromium emissions (a known human carcinogen) and the risk associated with those emissions. This action also includes housekeeping requirements to minimize fugitive emissions from affected sources. In addition, this action eliminates the use of fume suppressants that contain perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), which has been shown to be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic. Finally, this action amends the requirements for testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping for consistency with the other requirements of the NESHAP.
With regard to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Steel Pickling—HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants, the Agency has determined that no amendments are needed based on the risk and technology reviews under Sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f) of the CAA. However, EPA identified two areas where amendments were needed to ensure the rules were meeting requirements of Sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3). First, this action eliminates an alternative compliance option that was inconsistent with the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). Secondly, we are adding provisions to require the emission limits of the rule to apply at all times, including during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction.
Table 2 summarizes the costs and emissions reductions for this action. See section V of this preamble for further discussion of the costs and impacts.
Table 3 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final action for the source category listed. To determine whether your facility would be affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP.
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of these NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in Table 1 of this preamble in the preceding
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address:
Additional information is available on the residual risk and technology review (RTR) Web page at
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by November 19, 2012. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that “[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.” This section also provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding
The 1995 Chromium Electroplating NESHAP regulate emissions of chromium compounds from three source categories: Hard chromium electroplating, decorative chromium electroplating, and chromium anodizing. The NESHAP apply to both major sources and area sources. The NESHAP were promulgated on January 25, 1995, (60 FR 4963) and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart N. We amended the NESHAP to address issues related to changes in control technology, monitoring and implementation on July 19, 2004 (69 FR 42885).
The Hard Chromium Electroplating source category consists of facilities that plate base metals with a relatively thick layer of chromium using an electrolytic process. Hard chromium electroplating provides a finish that is resistant to wear, abrasion, heat, and corrosion. These facilities plate large cylinders and industrial rolls used in construction equipment and printing presses, hydraulic cylinders and rods, zinc die castings, plastic molds, engine components, and marine hardware.
The NESHAP distinguish between large hard chromium electroplating facilities and small hard chromium electroplating facilities. Large hard chromium electroplating facilities are defined as any such facility with a cumulative annual rectifier capacity equal to or greater than 60 million ampere-hours per year (amp-hr/yr). Small hard chromium electroplating facilities are defined as any facility with a cumulative annual rectifier capacity less than 60 million amp-hr/yr. The 1995 NESHAP require all affected tanks located at large hard chromium electroplating facilities to meet an emissions limit of 0.015 milligrams of total chromium per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm). Alternatively, large hard chromium facilities also can comply with the NESHAP by maintaining the surface tension in affected tanks equal to or less than 45 dynes per centimeter (dynes/cm), if measured using a stalagmometer, or 35 dynes/cm, if measured using a tensiometer. Compliance with the applicable surface tension limit ensures compliance with the emission limit.
The Chromium Electroplating NESHAP require affected tanks at existing small hard chromium electroplating facilities to meet an emissions limit of 0.030 mg/dscm and affected tanks at new small hard chromium electroplating facilities to meet a limit of 0.015 mg/dscm.
We estimate that there currently are approximately 188 large hard chromium electroplating facilities and 394 small hard chromium electroplating facilities in operation in the U.S. outside of California. Of the 394 small hard chromium electroplating facilities, we estimate that 131 of these facilities have one or more tanks that are subject to the new source standards, and the affected sources at the other 263 facilities are subject to the existing source standards. Additionally, there are about 70 hard chromium electroplating facilities operating in California.
The Decorative Chromium Electroplating source category consists of facilities that plate base materials such as brass, steel, aluminum, or plastic with layers of copper and nickel, followed by a relatively thin layer of chromium to provide a bright, tarnish- and wear-resistant surface. Decorative chromium electroplating is used for items such as automotive trim, metal furniture, bicycles, hand tools, and plumbing fixtures. We estimate that there currently are approximately 517 decorative chromium electroplating plants in operation in the U.S. The 1995 NESHAP require all existing and new decorative chromium electroplating sources to meet a total chromium emissions limit of 0.01 mg/dscm or meet the surface tension limits of 45 dynes/cm, if measured using a stalagmometer, or 35 dynes/cm, if measured using a tensiometer.
The Chromium Anodizing source category consists of facilities that use chromic acid to form an oxide layer on aluminum to provide resistance to corrosion. The chromium anodizing process is used to coat aircraft parts (such as wings and landing gears) as well as architectural structures that are subject to high stress and corrosive conditions. We estimate that there currently are about 170 chromium anodizing plants in operation in the U.S. The NESHAP require all existing and new chromium anodizing sources to meet a total chromium emissions limit of 0.01 mg/dscm, or meet the surface tension limits of 45 dynes/cm, if measured using a stalagmometer, or 35 dynes/cm, if measured using a tensiometer.
In 2010, pursuant to section 112(f)(2) of the CAA, we evaluated the residual risk associated with the NESHAP. At that time, we also conducted a technology review, as required by section 112(d)(6). Based on the results of our initial residual risk and technology reviews, we proposed on October 21, 2010 (75 FR 65071), that the risks due to HAP emissions from these source categories were acceptable. The basis for this decision is explained in the October 21, 2010
As a result of our technology review in 2010, we proposed the following amendments to the NESHAP for all three source categories:
• Incorporate housekeeping practices into 40 CFR 63.342(f); and,
• Phase out the use of wetting agent fume suppressants (WAFS) that use perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS);
We proposed the housekeeping practices because they will help reduce and minimize fugitive emissions of chromium compounds from chromium electroplating and anodizing facilities and we had determined at the time of the proposal that they could be implemented at relatively low costs. We proposed to revise the rule to no longer allow the addition of PFOS-based WAFS to tanks as a method to meet the MACT requirements for these source categories. The basis for this proposal is described in the October 2010
We also proposed some additional changes in the 2010 proposal under Section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), including:
• Revise the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions in the rule;
• Revise the monitoring and testing requirements; and
• Make technical corrections to the NESHAP.
The proposed changes to the SSM provisions will ensure that the standards apply at all times, even during periods of malfunction. Regarding the monitoring and testing requirements, we proposed to revise the compliance provisions for multiple sources controlled by a common add-on air pollution control device, clarify that testing can be performed by either Method 306 or Method 306A, revise Method 306B to clarify that the method also applies to hard chromium electroplating tanks and include procedures for checking the accuracy of, and cleaning of, a stalagmometer (See 75 FR 65095 for a more detailed discussion of the proposed monitoring revisions).
We also proposed to add a provision to provide an affirmative defense against civil penalties for violations of emission standards caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative defense, which is the same affirmative defense provision we have proposed or promulgated in several other recent MACT rules.
In our 2010 proposal, we provided further explanation of the basis for proposing these amendments to the NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). See 75 FR 65093. We proposed that existing sources could not use PFOS-based WAFS 3 years after publication of the final rule in the
In response to the 2010 proposal, several commenters expressed concern that the data set used in the risk assessment was not sufficient and not
Our February 2012 supplemental proposal (77 FR 6628) presented the results of the new risk assessment. Based on that assessment, we proposed that risks due to HAP emissions from each of the three chromium electroplating and anodizing source categories were acceptable since the actual and allowable emissions of HAP pose cancer risks below 100-in-1 million, and because a number of the other risk metrics did not indicate high risk concerns. For hard chromium electroplating, we estimated that the maximum individual cancer risk (MIR) was 20-in-1 million based on actual emissions and that about 130,000 people were exposed to risks greater than 1-in-1 million, for decorative chromium electroplating we estimated that the MIR was 10-in-1 million based on actual emissions and that about 43,000 people were exposed to risks greater than 1-in-1 million, and for the chromic acid anodizing source category we estimated that the MIR was 5-in-1 million based on actual emissions and that about 5,000 people were exposed to risks greater than 1-in-1 million. Moreover, the potential risks due to allowable emissions were estimated to be up to 50-in-1 million for hard chromium electroplating, 70-in-1 million for decorative chromium electroplating, and 60-in-1 million for chromic acid anodizing. After proposing that the risks posed by each source category were acceptable, we evaluated potential control options under Section 112(f) for each source category to determine whether additional controls were necessary to provide an ample margin of safety or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. We identified cost-effective controls that would lower emissions and reduce risks. Therefore, in the February 8, 2012, supplemental proposal, we proposed pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) to tighten the emissions limits for affected sources. For existing large hard chromium electroplating tanks, we proposed tightening the emissions limit from 0.015 mg/dscm to 0.011 mg/dscm. For existing small hard chromium electroplating sources, we proposed tightening the emissions limit from 0.030 mg/dscm to 0.015 mg/dscm. For existing decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing sources, we proposed tightening the emissions limit from 0.010 mg/dscm to 0.007 mg/dscm. For all new sources, we proposed tightening the emissions limit to 0.006 mg/dscm. We explained that these emission limits were cost effective.
In our supplemental proposal, we also proposed to require under CAA section 112(d)(6) the same limits that we proposed would provide an ample margin of safety because the limits reflect developments in practices, processes or control technologies and are cost-effective. See 77 FR 6638-45.
We also proposed under both CAA section 112(f)(2) and section 112(d)(6) that sources could instead demonstrate compliance by maintaining surface tension limits of 40 dynes/cm, if measured using a stalagmometer, and 33 dynes/cm, if measured using a tensiometer. These limits are tighter than those currently in the NESHAP, which are 45 dynes/cm, if measured using a stalagmometer, and 35 dynes/cm, if measured using a tensiometer. The proposed surface tension limits would ensure that the alternative compliance option is at least as stringent as the concentration based emissions limits described above. 77 FR at 6644-45. For more information regarding the relationship between surface tension and emissions see the
We estimated that these proposed emissions limits and surface tension limits would reduce the cancer risks, cancer incidence, and the number of people exposed to risks greater than 1-in-1 million due to emissions of hexavalent chromium from this industry by 25 to 50 percent. 77 FR at 6648-49.
We proposed that existing sources would need to meet the limits no later than 2 years after the effective date of the final rule. Section 112(f)(4) generally provides that a standard promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) applies 90 days after the effective date, but further provides for a compliance period of up to 2 years where the Administrator finds that such time is necessary for the installation of controls and that steps will be taken during that period to assure protection to health from imminent endangerment. In the supplemental proposal, we explained that a 2-year compliance period was necessary for facilities to determine if they meet the proposed emissions limits, schedule a compliance test, perform an engineering analysis to determine the control options, and install and test new emissions control equipment. We further proposed that new sources must comply with the emission limits or surface tension limits upon start-up. See 77 FR 6649.
As stated in the proposed preamble, the EPA is taking a step to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is requiring owners and operators of Chrome Electroplating/Steel Pickling facilities to submit electronic copies of required performance test reports.
As mentioned in the proposed preamble, data will be collected through an electronic emissions test report structure called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). The ERT will generate an electronic report which will be submitted to the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A description of the ERT can be found at:
The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is available at the previously mentioned ERT Web site. The EPA believes, through this approach, industry will save time in the performance test submittal process. Additionally this rulemaking benefits industry by cutting back on recordkeeping costs as the performance test reports that are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer required to be kept on site.
As mentioned in the proposed preamble, State, local and tribal agencies will benefit from more streamlined and accurate review of electronic data that will be available on the EPA WebFIRE database. Additionally performance test data will become available to the public through WebFIRE. Having such data publicly available enhances transparency and accountability. The major advantages of electronic reporting are more fully explained in the proposed preamble.
In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control strategy development and other air pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated with performance test data will save industry, state, local, tribal agencies and the EPA significant time, money and effort while improving the quality of emission inventories and, as a result, air quality regulations. See
Steel pickling is a treatment process in which the heavy oxide crust or mill scale that develops on the steel surface during hot forming or heat treating is removed chemically in a bath of aqueous acid solution. There are two specific processes regulated under the Steel Pickling NESHAP. Pickling is a process applied to metallic substances that removes surface impurities, stains, or crusts to prepare the metal for subsequent plating (e.g., with chromium) or other treatment, such as galvanization or painting. A pickling line is defined in the rule as using an acid solution in any tank in which hydrochloric acid is at a concentration of 6 percent by weight or greater and has a temperature of 100 °F or greater. An acid regeneration plant is defined in the rule as the equipment and processes that regenerate fresh hydrochloric acid (HCl) pickling solution from spent pickle liquor using a thermal treatment process. The HAP emission points from the steel pickling process include steel pickling baths, steel pickling sprays, and tank vents. The HAP emission point from acid regeneration plants is the spray roaster.
We estimate that there are approximately 100 facilities subject to the Steel Pickling NESHAP. Many of these facilities are located adjacent to integrated iron and steel manufacturing plants or electric arc furnace steelmaking facilities (minimills) that produce steel from scrap. Acid Regeneration facilities may or may not be located at steel pickling operations.
In 2010, pursuant to section 112(f)(2) of the CAA, we evaluated the residual risk associated with the NESHAP. We also conducted a technology review, as required by section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. Based on our risk analysis, we determined that there were no cancer risks attributable to emissions from the steel pickling source category. We also estimated the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value to be 2 based on emissions of chlorine and the maximum off-facility-site acute Hazard Quotient (HQ) value could be up to 0.4, based on actual emission levels and the reference exposure level (REL) value for chlorine. 75 FR at 65122-24. We proposed on October 21, 2010 that the risks were acceptable based on our determination that facilities in this source category emit no HAPs that are carcinogens and because the acute risks were low. While the chronic non-cancer TOSHI level for one facility exceeded the reference level, we noted that this facility has had compliance issues with the standard and that the actual emissions we relied on for this facility included emissions in excess of what is allowed under the MACT standard. We estimate that if emissions were maintained at levels equal to or lower than the level allowed by the MACT limit (6 ppm) then the TOSHI would be no higher than 1. The next highest HI from any facility in the source category is 0.1.
We identified one development in practices, processes or control technologies for this source category, but determined that it was not technically feasible for the industry. 75 FR at 65124. Thus, we proposed that no amendments were necessary under both the second part of the section 112(f) review, determining whether the standard provides an ample margin of safety and prevents an adverse environmental effect, and for the 112(d)(6) review. 75 FR at 65124. However, under section 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3), we proposed to eliminate the startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) exemption in the Steel Pickling NESHAP in light of the court's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA (Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) 130 S. Ct. 1735 (2010)). We proposed several revisions to the regulations regarding SSM, including:
• Revising Table 1 to indicate that the requirements in 40 CFR 63.6(e) of the General Provisions, regarding the “duty to minimize” emissions do not apply and instead proposed to incorporate it in 40 CFR 63.1159(c).
• Removing the SSM Plan requirement requiring affected sources to calculate their emissions during startup and shutdown and to maintain records of the startup and shutdown emission calculations.
• Revising the SSM-associated monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements to require reporting and recordkeeping for periods of malfunction.
• Adding provisions to provide an affirmative defense against civil penalties for violations of emission standards caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative defense.
In the February 2012 supplemental proposal (77 FR 6628) we proposed two additional actions for the Steel Pickling source category. First, we proposed to remove a compliance alternative established in the original MACT rule. The alternative compliance option allowed existing HCl regeneration facilities to request approval for an alternative source-specific chlorine concentration standard from their permitting authority. We stated that we believe that this alternative compliance option was not appropriate under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) and that the option had been adopted inappropriately. Second, we proposed to require electronic reporting for the Steel Pickling and HCl Acid Regeneration source category similar to that described above for the chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing source categories and for the same reasons.
For all three chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing source categories, we are finalizing the emission and surface tension limits as proposed in the supplemental proposal under Sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act. However, as noted in the following paragraphs, we performed additional analyses based on issues raised and information submitted during the comment period, which add further support for this final action.
Additional information on emissions and controls from chromium electroplating and chromic acid anodizing sources was submitted to EPA during the comment period, and we also obtained additional data and information from some States and industry shortly after the close of the comment period. The information supported the data and analyses we had performed to develop the emissions limits for the supplemental proposal. For example, we obtained data from two additional chromic acid anodizing plants that showed they had emissions well below the limits we are promulgating and that indicates the anodizing plants can easily meet the limits with readily available common control technologies. We also obtained additional data from hard chromium electroplating plants that shows even more plants than we estimated in the proposal are already meeting the lower emissions limits.
We also performed new analyses of the costs of the proposed requirements and the emissions reductions that would be achieved based on the information that became available after we issued the supplemental proposal.
With regard to our review under Section 112(f), we continue to conclude that risks are acceptable for all 3 source categories since the cancer MIRs for each of the source categories are below 100-in-1 million, and because a number of the other risk metrics do not indicate high risk concerns. However, as explained below, we are promulgating standards under Section 112(f) to provide an ample margin of safety.
Regarding the standards proposed under Section 112(f)(2), several commenters claimed that, as part of the ample margin of safety analysis included in the proposed rule, we did not evaluate the health impacts (e.g., reduced risk of cancer) of the various options we considered. The comments are summarized in Section IV of this notice and in the Responses to Comments (RTC) document, which is available in the docket.
As set forth in the Benzene NESHAP, in the ample margin of safety decision process, the agency again considers all of the health risks and other health information considered in the first step (acceptability determination). Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control are considered, including costs and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties and any other relevant factors.
In the supplemental proposal addressing our risk review for the chromium electroplating and anodizing source categories, under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated and presented various emission control options, and the costs and economic impacts associated with those options. While we summarized the risk reductions that would be achieved with the proposed limits, we did not provide information regarding the risk reductions that could be achieved by control options that we did not propose to adopt. In response to the comments we received, we also evaluated the risk reductions that would be achieved by each technically feasible option for each of the chromium electroplating and anodizing source categories and subcategories (i.e., large hard chromium electroplating, small hard chromium electroplating, decorative electroplating and chromic acid anodizing). The results are summarized below.
For the large hard chromium sources, we evaluated three control options in the supplemental proposal. The first option, which is the option we proposed and are finalizing today, would be to lower the chromium emissions limit for existing sources from 0.015 mg/dscm to 0.011 mg/dscm. The second option was to lower the limit to 0.0075 mg/dscm, and the third option was to lower the limit to 0.006 mg/dscm. The results of our cost and risk analyses for large hard chromium sources are summarized in Table 4.
We also estimated impacts of Option 1 to small businesses, and found that most facilities would have a costs-to-sales ratio of less than 1 percent. However, we estimated that 6 plants could have costs-to-sales ratios up to 9 percent. (See Economic Impact Analysis for Risk and Technology Review: Chromium Electroplating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Source Categories, which can be found in the docket for this action.) For the other two options (Options 2 and 3), we did not quantify the impacts to small businesses, however, they would both pose impacts to a larger number of small businesses since they would impose costs on more facilities and almost all facilities within this category are small businesses. As shown in Table 4, Option 1 also achieves meaningful reductions in risks associated with exposure to a known human carcinogen, including an estimated 30 percent reduction in the
Furthermore, in the 2010 proposal (75 FR 65068), we considered the option of requiring controls similar to standards adopted in California, which would essentially require facilities to install high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters on all hard chromium plants. As described in the 2010 proposal, the overall costs for that option were significantly higher than the other options described above, and would have resulted in much greater economic impacts to small businesses. Furthermore, based on more recent analyses, we estimate that the cost effectiveness of requiring HEPA filters on all large hard chromium plants would be at least $27,000 per pound. (see
With regard to new sources, we proposed a limit of 0.006 mg/dscm. The rationale for choosing 0.006 mg/dscm is described in detail in the supplemental proposal. After considering public comments and additional analyses, we are finalizing this limit of 0.006 mg/dscm for new large hard chromium plants because this is the lowest level that can be reliably achieved cost-effectively, such as allowing plants the flexibility to use add-on controls or WAFS to comply. This limit will ensure that the risks posed by any new sources will be acceptable and the standard will provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect.
For small hard chromium electroplating sources, we also evaluated the costs and risk reductions that would be achieved for three main control options. The first option, which is the option we proposed and are finalizing today, would be to lower the chromium emissions limit for pre-1995 sources from 0.03 mg/dscm to 0.015 mg/dscm. The second option was to lower the limit to 0.01 mg/dscm, and the third option was to lower the limit to 0.006 mg/dscm. The basis for evaluating these options is explained further in the supplemental proposal. (77 FR 6628) The results are summarized in Table 5.
We also estimated the impacts of Option 1 to small businesses, and found that most facilities would have a costs-to-sales ratio of less than 1 percent. However, we estimated that 3 plants could have costs-to-sales ratios of about three percent. For the other two options (Options 2 and 3), we did not quantify the impacts to small businesses; however, we know Options 2 and 3 would pose impacts to a larger number of small businesses.
Option 1, as shown in Table 5, achieves approximately a 50 percent reduction in the MIR and cancer incidence associated with exposure to a known human carcinogen, and a 20 percent reduction in the numbers of people with risks at or above 1-in-1 million and 10-in-1 million, for $500,000 in annualized costs. Options 2 and 3 achieve similar reductions in incidence and population risks, but the annualized costs were three and four times higher, respectively, than those of Option 1, and substantially more small businesses would be impacted. Although Options 2 and 3 reduce the baseline MIR by more than half, the baseline MIR is already considerably below 100-in-1 million. Considering the cost, economic, and risk impacts discussed above, we conclude that Option 1 provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
Furthermore, as explained in the 2010 proposal, we considered the option of requiring controls similar to the California standards, which would have essentially required all hard chromium electroplating facilities to install HEPA filters. As described in the 2010 proposal, the estimated total capital and annualized costs for that option were much higher than the other options described above and would have imposed much more significant economic impacts to small businesses. Furthermore, based on more recent analyses, we estimate that the cost effectiveness of requiring HEPA filters on all small hard chromium plants would be at least $42,700 per pound. (see
In summary, based on all our analyses and after weighing all the factors, we are promulgating the chromium emissions limit of 0.015 mg/dscm, as proposed in the supplemental proposal notice (77 FR 6628) for existing small hard chromium electroplating sources.
With regard to new sources, as described in detail in the supplemental proposal, we proposed a chromium emissions limit of 0.006 mg/dscm. The rationale for choosing 0.006 mg/dscm is described in detail in the supplemental proposal. After considering public comments and additional analyses, we are finalizing this limit of 0.006 mg/dscm for new small hard chromium plants because this is the lowest level that can be reliably achieved cost-effectively, such as allowing plants the flexibility to use add-on controls or WAFS to comply. This limit will ensure that the risks posed by any new sources will be acceptable and the standard will provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect.
For the Decorative Chromium Electroplating source category, the MIR due to actual emissions is estimated to be 10-in-1 million, and the cancer incidence is estimated to be 0.02 cases per year. The MIR due to allowable emissions is estimated to be 70-in-1 million, and the cancer incidence is estimated to be 0.08 cases per year. Based on actual emissions, approximately 100 people are estimated to have cancer risks at or above 10-in-1 million, and approximately 43,000 people are estimated to have cancer risks at or above 1-in-1 million. We also estimate that the potential is low for chronic and acute non-cancer health effects, and for multipathway risks. As discussed in the preamble to the supplemental proposed rule, we conclude that the risks from this source category are acceptable.
With regard to control options, as explained in the preamble of the supplemental proposal, we evaluated possible limits within the range of 0.006 to 0.01 mg/dscm under the technology review and risk reviews. The current standard is 0.01 mg/dscm, and we considered this as the upper limit to be considered. As described in the supplemental proposal, we decided that 0.006 mg/dscm should be the lower end of the range of limits considered because most plants rely on fume suppressants to limit emissions and 0.006 mg/dscm was the lowest concentration that we estimated could reliably be achieved by limiting surface tensions to 33 dynes/cm (as measured with tensiometer) and 40 dynes/cm (as measured with a stalagmometer). However, a portion of the decorative plating sources rely on add-on controls to comply with the NESHAP. Therefore, we also evaluated the emissions levels being achieved by decorative electroplating plants that rely on add-on controls. Based on data we have for 20 tanks at 17 facilities, the emissions concentrations from these 20 tanks are all less than 0.007 mg/dscm. The highest value is 0.0066 mg/dscm. Two of these tanks (about 11 percent) have emissions between 0.006 to 0.0066 mg/dscm. The other 15 tanks have emissions below 0.005 mg/dscm. After evaluating this range, as described in the proposal, we decided to propose an emissions limit of 0.007 mg/dscm, a limit slightly higher than the emissions being achieved by the highest emitting facilities in our data set to minimize the need for additional add-on controls in this source category. Based on the data we have, a limit of 0.006 mg/dscm could result in some plants needing to retrofit their add-on controls which would result in significantly higher costs for those facilities. With regard to reductions, we estimate this option would achieve reductions in overall emissions of far less than 15 percent compared to the 0.007 mg/dscm limit. Therefore, we did not further evaluate the 0.006 mg/dscm limit for existing sources.
As described above, for decorative chromium electroplating sources, we evaluated the costs and risk reductions that would be achieved under one control option for existing sources. That option, which we are finalizing today as proposed, is to lower the emissions limit for existing sources from 0.01 mg/dscm to 0.007 mg/dscm. The basis for evaluating this option is explained further in the supplemental proposal. The results of our cost and risk analyses for decorative chromium electroplating sources are summarized in Table 6.