HARD CHROME ELECTROPLATING MACT AMENDMENTS OVERVIEW

1. HARD CHROME ELECTROPLATING MACT AMENDMENTS OVERVIEW 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART N

2. INTRO • 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart N original promulgation date: 01/25/95; • Amendment to Subpart N FR 42885, dated July 19, 2004; • OSHA Amendments Hexavalent Chrome worker protection PEL reduction decision impact; • Air Permit Requirements for facilities: • USEPA decision to waive Title V requirement for Subpart N facilities • Proposal dated, March 25, 2005.

3. SUMMARY • The intent of this summary is to provide an overview of the amendments to: • Subpart N, • OSHA rule change; 1218-AB45-1940, and • Amendments to Part 70, Title V, not to provide all of the details. • The Subpart N Amendment expanded the definition of effected sources to include rectifiers, anodes, heat exchanger equipment, circulation pumps and air agitation systems.

4. OSHA • In July 1993, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was petitioned for an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to reduce the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for occupational exposures to hexavalent chromium (CrVI). • The current PEL in general industry is a ceiling value of 100 ug/m3, measured as CrVI and reported as chromic anhydride (CrO3). • OSHA began collecting data and performing preliminary analyses relevant to occupational exposure to CrVI.

5. OSHA (cont’d.) • In 1997, OSHA was sued by the Oil Chemical & Atomic Workers and Public Citizen’s Health Research Group (HRG) for unreasonable delay in issuing a final CrVI standard. • The 3rd Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in OSHA's favor and the Agency continued its data collection and analytic efforts on hexavalent chromium (CrVI).

6. OSHA (cont’d.) • December 4, 2002, OSHA announced its intent to proceed with developing a proposed standard. • On December 24, 2002, the 3rd Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of HRG and ordered the Agency to proceed expeditiously with a CrVI standard. OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking on CrVI on October 4, 2004. • Public hearings were held February 1-15, 2005.

7. OSHA (cont’d.) • Approximately 380,000 workers are exposed to CrVI in general industry, maritime, construction, and agriculture. • Industries or work processes that could be particularly affected by a standard for CrVI include: Electroplating, welding, painting, chromate production, chromate pigment production, ferrochromium production, iron and steel production, chromium catalyst production, and chromium dioxide and sulfate production.

8. OSHA (cont’d.) • Alternatives: OSHA had considered non-regulatory approaches, including the dissemination of guidance on its web site. However, OSHA has determined that rulemaking is a necessary step to ensure that workers are protected from the hazards of hexavalent chromium and the Agency has been ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals to move forward with a final rule.

9. CAA AMENDED MANDATE • The Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA) directs EPA to regulate emissions of a number of toxic chemicals, including chromium, from a wide range of industrial sources. • The hexavalent form of chromium is highly toxic and a known human carcinogen, causing lung cancer; • Less is known about the cancer risk of the trivalent form of chromium, but • it can accumulate in the lungs and may result in decreased lung function after continuous exposure.

10. WHY THE NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart N? • In November of 1994, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued national regulations to control air emissions of chromium from chromium electroplating and anodizing tanks to meet the requirements of the CAA. • The rule was promulgated on January 25, 1995.

11. What we are reviewing? • Review of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart N NESHAP (National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants); • NESHAP History (why the NESHAP); • Federal compliance requirements; • Amendment to Subpart N FR 42885, dated July 19, 2004; • OSHA Hexavalent Chrome PEL stringency impact on Subpart N; • Air Permit Requirements for facilities

12. REVIEW • Rule applicability: • Covered operations; • Operations not covered; • Standards to be followed, including work practice standards; • Operating Limits; • Important dates.

13. REVIEW (cont’d.) • New or existing source determination; • General rule requirements; • Initial compliance demonstration; • Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting requirements; • Compliance options;

14. REVIEW (cont’d.) • Facility File Inspection review: • Follow-up on OSHA issues; • Need for stack testing; • Need for more control capacity; • Frequently asked questions.

15. BREADTH OF THE REGULATION • Chromium electroplating and anodizing tanks are one of the largest sources of chromium emissions in the United States. • The regulatory requirements differ for tanks that use a trivalent chromium bath rather than a chromic acid (hexavalent chromium) bath.

16. WHO ARE THE EFFECTED SOURCES? • Hard chromium electroplating operations deposit a thick layer of chromium directly on a base metal to provide wear and corrosion resistance, low friction, and hardness (for hydraulic cylinders, industrial rolls, etc.). • Chromium anodizing operations form a chromium oxide layer on aluminum to provide corrosion resistance (for aircraft parts, architectural structures, etc.). specifically exempts certain types of sources.

17. OVERVIEW OF THE REGULATION • EMISSION LIMITS; • WORK PRACTICES.

18. EMISSION LIMITS • The regulation specifies emission limits (expressed as concentration of chromium) that can typically be achieved by the use of a certain technique to reduce emissions (such as a control device or wetting agent fume suppressant);

19. EMISSION LIMITS • The emission limits and control techniques used as the basis for these limits are: • 0.03 mg/dscm for small, existing hard chromium electroplating tanks (packed bed scrubber); • 0.015 mg/dscm for all other hard CR6 tanks (composite mesh pad control) • 0.01 mg/dscm or a surface tension limit of 45 dynes per centimeter for decorative CR6 electroplating and CR6 anodizing tanks (fume suppressants).

20. WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS • Work practice standards are required to ensure that the control technique you use to comply with the regulation is properly maintained (BIGGEST PROBLEM). • Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) plans, or other existing plans as part of your O&M plan, as long as they meet the criteria in the regulation. • Reduction in the OSHA standard will not change the work practice requirements.

21. TYPICAL FACILITY (Photo)

22. APPLICABILITY: Who is covered by this rule? (Subpart N) • Own or operate an EFFECTED SOURCE at a facility that is a area source, • Located at a major source, or • Part of a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).

23. EFFECTED SOURCE • Any effected source (as defined in §63.343) is an existing facility and must follow requirements for any performance tests under §63.7 and §63.9.

24. What are Some Operations’ Emissions Impacted by Subpart N? • Fugitive emissions from electroplating operations. • The Work Practices standard and • O & M requirements have not changed.

25. IMPORTANT DATES • New effected sources must be in compliance at startup. • If the Hard Chrome Electroplating facility is an area source, but becomes part of a major source of HAP, compliance of § 63.343 is required upon startup. • The effected sources must meet the notification and scheduling requirements in • §63.343. • Some of these notifications must be submitted before the effected source compliance date.

26. TEST METHODS • Subpart N clearly defines the test methods and other procedures in §63.344 used to demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions limitations

27. CHECKLIST OF WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS • Recommend a Checklist, for example; • A list of the work practice standards that apply to your facility; • Procedures to follow to ensure that equipment or process malfunctions due to poor maintenance or other preventable conditions do not occur; and • Procedures for identifying malfunctions and for implementing corrective actions.

28. CHECKLIST (cont’d.) • You may use any standard operating procedure (SOP) manuals, vendor O&M manuals, OccupationalSafety and Health Administration (OSHA) plans, or other existing plans as part of your O&M plan, as long as they meet the criteria in the regulation.

29. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF SUBPART N AMENDMENTS • A REQUIREMENT TO ESTABLISH NEW CMP SYSTEM OPERATING LIMITS FOR THE NEW PRESSURE DROP OPTION; • REPEAT INITIAL PERFORMANCE TEST;

30. SUBPART N AMENDMENTS TO THE FINAL RULE • FR 42885, July 19, 2004 • (5) technical issues addressed: • Use of fume suppressants for controlling CR6 from electroplating tanks; • Revised surface tension limit for decorative chromium electroplating tanks using tensiometer (45 dynes/cm) & stalagometer (35 dynes/cm) to measure surface tension;

31. AMENDMENTS (cont’d.) • An alternate emission limit for CR6 tanks equipped with enclosed hoods; • Not allowing mass rate of total exhaust gas CR6 to exceed allowable as calculated under §63.342(c) (2) (v) • Equation: MAMER = ETSA X K X 0.015 mg/dscm: • MAMER is alternative emission rate in mg/hr, • ETSA is Hard CR6 electroplating tank surface area, and • K is conversion factor, 425 dscm/(ft2 X hr)

32. AMENDMENTS (cont’d.) • For existing tanks, use 0.03 mg/dscm • Revised definitions for CR6 electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks (includes peripheral equipment such as rectifiers…considered routine maintenance); • Amendment to the pressure drop monitoring equipment for CMP control systems; • Increase to +/- 2 inches w.c. from +/- 1.

33. OSHA HEXAVALENT CHROME PEL STRINGENCY IMPACT ON SUBPART N • OSHA required to publish final workplace CR6 PEL by October 2, 2004 (court decreed date). • Currently, OSHA is considering reduction by 50 – 90% of current CR6 levels. • Could impact Subpart N control status; • Increase in CR6 emissions may exceed design; • Facility could become non-compliant.

34. DO I NEED AN AIR PERMIT? USEPA and States require: • State Air Operating Permits • Construction Permits • Title V Permits • NESHAP Requirements incorporated

35. STATE PERMIT PROCESS • The final chromium electroplating regulation that was published in the Federal Register on January 25, 1995 required all sources, major and non-major (i.e., area), to obtain a Title V operating permit.

36. STATE PERMIT PROCESS (Cont’d.) • US EPA is considering amending the final regulation to: • Allow States to defer for 5 years (i.e., up to December 1999…December 2004 is “D-DAY”) all non- major hard chromium electroplating operations from the requirement to obtain a title V permit;

37. STATE PERMIT PROCESS (cont’d.) • Exempt all non-major decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing operations that use fume suppressants as an emission reduction technology from the requirement to obtain a title V permit; and • Exempt all non-major decorative chromium electroplating operations that use a trivalent chromium bath that incorporates a wetting agent as a bath ingredient.

38. STATE PERMIT PROCESS (cont’d.) • The rule does sustain the requirement for an effected source that requires a Title V permit for criteria pollutants to also codify the Subpart N in that Title V permit