Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 63

EPA ID: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0084; FRL-8541-9]

RIN ID: RIN 2060-AM37

NOTICE: Part IV

DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area Source Standards for Plating and Polishing Operations

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 14, 2008, unless a public hearing is requested by March 24, 2008. If a hearing is requested on this proposed rule, written comments must be received by April 28, 2008. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions must be received by OMB on or before April 14, 2008.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national emission standards for control of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for the plating and polishing area source category. This rule proposes emission standards in the form of management practices for new and existing tanks, thermal spraying equipment, and mechanical polishing equipment in certain plating and polishing processes. These proposed standards reflect EPA's determination regarding the generally achievable control technology (GACT) and/or management practices for the area source category.

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards

A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for the proposed standards?

B. What source category is affected by the proposed standards?

C. How did we gather information for this proposed rule?

D. What is the industry profile?

E. What are the production processes, emissions sources, and available controls?

III. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Do the proposed standards apply to my source?

B. When do I comply with the proposed standards?

C. What emissions control requirements is EPA proposing?

D. What are the initial compliance provisions?

E. What are the continuous compliance provisions?

F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements?
IV. Rationale for Selecting this Proposed Standards

A. How did we select the source category?

B. How did we select the affected sources?

C. How did we subcategorize plating and polishing processes?

D. How was GACT determined?

E. How did we select the compliance requirements?

F. How did we decide to exempt this area source category from title V permit requirements?
V. Impacts of the Proposed Standards

A. What are the air impacts?

B. What are the cost impacts?

C. What are the economic impacts?

D. What are the nonair health, environmental, and energy impacts?

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

[[Page 14127]]

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations
I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

The regulated category and entities potentially affected by this proposed action include:
Category NAICS code\1\ Examples of regulated entities Industry................................. 332813 Area source facilities engaged in any one or more types of nonchromium electroplating; electropolishing; electroforming; electroless plating, including thermal metal spraying, chromate conversion coating, and coloring; or mechanical polishing of metals and formed products for the trade. Regulated sources do not include chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing sources, as those sources are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart N, ``Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks.'' Manufacturing............................ 32, 33 Area source establishments engaged in one or more types of nonchromium electroplating; electropolishing; electroforming; electroless plating, including thermal metal spraying, chromate conversion coating, and coloring; or mechanical polishing of metals and formed products for the trade. Examples include: 33251, Hardware Manufacturing; 323111, Commercial Gravure Printing; 332116, Metal Stamping; 332722, Bolt, Nut, Screw, Rivet, and Washer Manufacturing; 332811, Metal Heat Treating; 332812, Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers; 332913, Plumbing Fixture Fitting and Trim Manufacturing; Other Metal Valve and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing; 332999, All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing; 334412, Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing; 336412, Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing; and 339911, Jewelry (except Costume) Manufacturing. \1\ North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11475, `` Am I subject to this subpart?'' of subpart WWWWWW (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Area Source Standards for Plating and Polishing Operations). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in Sec. 63.13 of the General Provisions to part 63 (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through http:// www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C40402), Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID EPAHQOAR20050084. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). A copy of this proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. D. When would a public hearing occur?

If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing concerning this proposed rule by March 24, 2008, we will hold a public hearing on March 31, 2008. If you are interested in attending the public hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 5417966 to verify that a hearing will be held. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for the proposed standards?

Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires us to establish NESHAP for both major and area sources of HAP that are listed for regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major source emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. An area source is a stationary source that is not a major source.

Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least 30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in the Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 urban HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to regulation. We implemented these requirements through the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). A primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent reduction in cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources. [[Page 14128]]

Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of generally available control technologies or management practices by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate report on the legislation (Senate Report Number 101228, December 20, 1989), which describes GACT as:
* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially available and appropriate for application by the sources in the category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems. Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important when developing regulations for source categories that have many small businesses.

Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control technologies and management practices that are generally available to the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine if the control technologies and management practices are transferable and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances, we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies and practices could be considered generally available for the area source category at issue. Finally, as we have already noted, in determining GACT for a particular area source category, we consider the costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and management practices on that category.

We are proposing these national emission standards in response to a courtordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for 11 source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by June 15, 2008 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 011537, D.D.C., March 2006). We have already issued regulations addressing one of the 11 source categories. See regulations for Wood Preserving (Federal Register, 72 (135), July 16, 2007.) Other rulemakings will include standards for the remaining source categories that are due in June 2008.
B. What area source category is affected by the proposed standards?

The Plating and Polishing Area Source Category includes any facility engaged in one or more of the following operations or processes: electroplating without chromium; electroforming; electropolishing; electroless plating; other nonelectrolytic metal coating, such as chromate conversion coating and thermal spraying; and the mechanical polishing of finished metals and formed products after plating. Note that facilities that are engaged in chromium electroplating that also perform any of the above plating and polishing processes are included in the Plating and Polishing Area Source Category for these processes.

Plating and polishing facilities are primarily classified under NAICS code 332813. However, plating and polishing processes are also colocated at many facilities that are classified under other NAICS codes. Examples include NAICS 33251, Hardware Manufacturing; 323111, Commercial Gravure Printing; 332116, Metal Stamping; 332722, Bolt, Nut, Screw, Rivet, and Washer Manufacturing; 332811, Metal Heat Treating; 332812, Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers; 332913, Plumbing Fixture Fitting and Trim Manufacturing; Other Metal Valve and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing; 332999, All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing; 334412, Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing; 336412, Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing; and 339911, Jewelry (except Costume) Manufacturing.

We added plating and polishing operations to the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy Area Source Category List on June 26, 2002 (67 FR 43113). The inclusion of this source category to the section 112(c)(3) area source category list is based on 1990 emissions data, as EPA used 1990 as the baseline year for that listing. EPA listed this source category for regulation pursuant to section 112(c)(3), based on emissions of compounds of five HAP metals: cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel. These five metal HAP represent part of the 90 percent of those urban HAP emissions in the 1990 inventory to be regulated, and are hereafter referred to as ``plating and polishing metal HAP.'' This source category was also listed for emissions of the organic HAP trichloroethylene (TCE). Chlorinated solvents such as TCE are used as degreasers in the plating industry. We subsequently discovered that the 1990 emissions data for TCE was for plating facilities that used TCE in degreasing operations, which are not part of this source category. Rather, these emission units at both major and area sources are subject to standards for halogenated solvent cleaning under 40 CFR part 63, subpart T. Consequently, we are not proposing standards for TCE from plating and polishing facilities. The plating and polishing source category listed for TCE emissions remains a listed source category pursuant to section 112(c)(3) of this part, and this proposed rule establishes standards for emissions of plating and polishing metal HAP. Therefore, we are clarifying that we do not need plating and polishing to meet the section 112(c)(3) 90 percent requirement regarding area source emissions of TCE.

C. How did we gather information for this proposed rule?

We gathered information for this proposed rule from industry representatives, trade associations, technical experts, published literature, the 2002 EPA National Emission Inventory, and a 2006 EPA survey of the industry that we performed specifically for the plating and polishing area source rule.

The EPA survey, also called information collection requests (ICR), was developed by EPA under the authority of section 114 of the CAA. A copy of the ICR questionnaire and the responses can be found in the docket for the Plating and Polishing Area Source Rule (Docket Number EPAHQOAR20050084).

The first version of the questionnaire was sent out in November 2004 to nine recipients; responses were received from eight facilities. A Federal Register Notice (FRN) was published in July 2005 (70 FR 43865, July 29, 2005) requesting comment on a second, improved questionnaire that was revised based on comments received from the first version. A second FRN was published on October 26, 2005 (70 FR 61810) to announce that the questionnaire had been submitted to the OMB for approval. Approval was received from OMB on February 23, 2006 (OMB 20600577, ICR 2186.01, Form No. 761032). A total of 1,151
questionnaires were mailed on May 10, 2006; most responses were received by July 31, 2006.

Potential recipients for the ICR were identified from names and addresses of facilities listed in several online databases, company websites, and information obtained from EPA Regional offices and State and local regulatory agencies. Through this process a list of approximately 2,500 facilities was compiled that was later reduced to 1,151 by eliminating plants with incomplete mailing addresses or plants that appeared to not belong to the source category. From the 1,151 total
[[Page 14129]]
ICR mailed, EPA received back 598 questionnaires. Adding these ICR to the previous 8 surveys, the total number of industry responses received by EPA was 606. Of this total, 120 were excluded from the area source analysis because either the information was not complete (80 ICR) or because the facilities were major sources that were not within the plating and polishing area source category (40 ICR).\a\ The result was 486 surveys from area sources in the plating and polishing source category.
\a\ We did, however, analyze separately the information on major sources in similar source categories to determine if the control technologies and management practices were transferable and generally available to the plating and polishing area source category.

In the 2006 EPA survey responses, no facility was found to be a major source for their plating and polishing processes. There were 15 NESHAP (40 CFR part 63) that were reported to be applicable to processes at the surveyed facilities colocated with plating and polishing processes. The most frequently identified NESHAP included ``Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks'' (subpart N) and ``Halogenated Solvent Cleaning'' (subpart T). These NESHAP (subparts N and T) apply to both major and area sources. Of the 486 area source plating and polishing facilities that responded to the 2006 EPA survey, approximately 250 have colocated area source processes subject to one or both of these two NESHAP.

The results of the survey analyses can be found in a memorandum for the Plating and Polishing Area Source Rule. (See Docket No. EPAHQOAR 20050084.)

D. What is the industry profile?

Based on 2002 U.S. Census data and the 2006 EPA survey of the industry, we estimate that 2,900 plating and polishing area source facilities are currently operating in the U.S. Independent estimates by the industry trade association confirm our estimate. The estimate includes several plating and polishing area sources that are captive facilities (i.e., colocated at manufacturing and other facilities engaged primarily in other operations). See section I(A) above, ``Does this action apply to me?'' for examples of some of these operations.

The 2006 EPA survey results indicated about 80 percent of the industry is located in 14 States, with about 40 percent of the area source facilities located in three States (Illinois, California, and Ohio). Nearly all (97 percent) of the plating and polishing facilities are in urban areas \b\ based on the 2006 EPA survey. Our analyses also indicate that between 92 and 98 percent of the plating and polishing area source category is comprised of small businesses, which the Small Business Administration defines to be facilities with less than 500 employees. The 2002 Census data also showed that 50 percent of the facilities in this source category had less than 10 employees. \b\ These urban areas are defined to be the urban 1 and urban 2 areas that formed the basis of the listing decisions under 112(c)(3) and (k).

For the 2,900 estimated area source facilities in the plating and polishing industry, we estimate that there are approximately 22,000 tanks and 1,400 thermal spray lines that use the plating and polishing metal HAP. Based on the 2006 EPA survey, the number of tanks per facility with plating and polishing metal HAP is estimated to range from 1 to 20 with an average of 10 tanks per facility. For the estimated 300 area source facilities that do thermal spraying with plating and polishing metal HAP, we estimate that these facilities have from 1 to 20 lines, with an average of 5 thermal spraying lines per facility.
E. What are the production processes, emission sources, and available controls?

1. Plating and Polishing Processes

Plating and polishing facilities perform several operations that use and can emit the plating and polishing metal HAP. These include electrolytic processes, nonelectrolytic processes, thermal spraying processes, and dry mechanical polishing operations. Electrolytic processes include nonchromium electroplating, electroforming, and electropolishing. Nonelectrolytic processes include electroless nickel plating, chromate conversion coating, and other tankbased processes, such as nickel acetate sealing. Electroplating, electroforming, electropolishing, and nonelectrolytic (or ``electroless'') plating all take place in a tank or ``bath.''

From the analyses performed with data acquired in the 2006 EPA survey, it is estimated that more than half of the plating and polishing area source facilities (estimated at over 1,500 facilities) perform electroplating with the plating and polishing metal HAP, with nickel the predominant metal plated; 4 percent or 80 facilities are estimated to perform electropolishing with the plating and polishing metal HAP; and less than 1 percent or 25 facilities are estimated to perform electroforming with the plating and polishing metal HAP. For the nonelectrolytic processes, approximately 25 percent of the facilities are estimated to perform electroless nickel and/or other electroless coating with the plating and polishing metal HAP. For the mechanical polishing process, we estimate that approximately 25 percent, or 700 facilities, perform mechanical polishing of the plating and polishing metal HAP. For thermal spraying process, we estimate that approximately 11 percent, or 300 facilities, have thermal spraying processes that use the plating and polishing metal HAP.

Many facilities perform more than one type of metal plating or polishing. From the analyses performed with data acquired in the 2006 EPA survey, we estimate that 80 percent of the facilities use nickel (with twothirds of the nickel used in electroplating and onethird in electroless nickel plating); 29 percent use lead, 16 percent use chromium (in nonelectroplating tanks), 5 percent use manganese, and 4 percent use cadmium. This includes both tankbased plating as well as thermal spraying processes, and where more than one plating or polishing process occurs at many facilities.

Electrolytic Plating and Polishing Processes. Electrolytic processes include electroplating, electroforming, and electropolishing. In the electroplating process, metal ions in either acid (pH less than 7), alkaline (pH greater than 7), or neutral (pH approximately equal to 7) solutions are reduced onto the surface of the work piece (the cathode or substrate) via an electrical current. The metal ions in the solution are usually replenished by the dissolution of metal from solid metal anodes (made of the same metal as that being plated), or by direct replenishment of the solution with metal salts or oxides. Electroplating can be performed with or without cyanide in the bath. Cyanide is a constituent of some baths and works to keep the metals in solution. More discussion of plating with cyanide follows below.

Electroforming is similar to electroplating, except that the plated surface is the product and the item that shapes the metal (the mandrel) is removed and discarded afterwards. Otherwise, electroforming is similar in chemistry to electroplating processes. Electroforming can be performed with or without cyanide in the bath.

Electropolishing is essentially the opposite of electroplating; the metal to be polished acts as the anode in an electric circuit. In this process, the work piece is attached to the anode and metal substrate is dissolved electrolytically, thereby removing the surface contaminant. Electropolishing can be
[[Page 14130]]
performed in acid or alkaline baths, although most electropolishing is performed in acid baths containing phosphoric acid and one or more additional acids. Other acids that are used in electropolishing baths include sulfuric, chromic, fluoboric, hydrochloric, citric, and glycolic acid. According to industry experts, less than 1 percent of plating and polishing facilities currently use chromic acid in electropolishing processes. Electropolishing is not performed with cyanide in the bath.

Most electroplating tank chemical formulations (or ``chemistries'') that do not use cyanide incorporate a wetting agent to minimize pitting from the hydrogen gas bubbles that form on the surface of the parts being plated. Wetting agents prevent the bubbles from adhering to the surface of the parts. Wetting agents also lower the surface tension of the plating bath and act to reduce the amount of energy released when the gas bubbles rise to the surface of the bath and burst. Consequently, the wetting agents also reduce the level of misting and metal HAP emissions from the tank. As a result of this dual function, these chemical compounds are referred to collectively as wetting agent/ fume suppressants (WAFS). Because WAFS prevent metal HAP emissions, as opposed to collecting metal HAP emissions after they occur with addon control devices, they are considered a pollution prevention technique.

Some chemicals that are not part of the initial plating bath chemistries are added ``over the side'' of the plating tanks, and include chemicals such as WAFS. This is especially true for the plating tanks that lose a significant amount of their ingredients through what is called ``dragout,'' or the loss of tank solution that occurs when parts are removed. The occurrence of dragout necessitates the replenishing of the bath ingredients ``over the side'' during the plating process.

As noted above, some plating baths use cyanide as a major bath ingredient. Cyanide is added to dissolve the metal cyanide compound (e.g., cadmium cyanide) and to create free cyanide in solution, which helps to corrode the anode. Caustic soda and carbonate also are added to the bath. These three constituents (cyanide, caustic soda, and carbonate) all work to increase the pH of the solution to at least 12. These tanks are selfregulating to a pH equal to or greater than 12 due to the nature of the cyanide bath chemistry.

The cyanide in the bath is a major bath constituent and not an additive. However, because of the selfregulating chemistry of the bath, the cyanide causes the bath to act as if WAFS are being used to prevent the metal HAP from being emitted rather than plated. All cyanide plating baths at pH greater than or equal to 12 have cyanide metal complexes in solution. The metal to be plated is either bound in the metalcyanide complex, or reduced at the cathode to elemental metal and plated onto the immersed parts. According to the technical literature and industry experts, considering the selfregulating chemistry of the bath, emissions of cyanide in the form of hydrogen cyanide would occur only at a pH of less than 12. Cyanide baths are not intentionally operated at pH less than 12 since unfavorable plating conditions would occur in the tank, among other negative effects. See the docket for this rule for minutes of meetings with industry representative and literature documents related to cyanide bath chemistry. (Docket No. EPAHQOAR20050084).

Nonelectrolytic Processes. Nonelectrolytic or ``electroless'' plating involves the deposition of a metallic coating on a metallic or nonmetallic surface without the use of external electrical energy. The basic ingredients in an electroless plating solution are a metal (usually in the form of a salt), a reducer, a complexing agent to hold the metal in solution, a WAFS, and various buffers and other chemicals to maintain bath stability and increase bath life. Nonelectrolytic processes include electroless nickel plating, chromate conversion coating, nickel acetate sealing, sodium dichromate sealing, and manganese phosphate coating.

Conversion coatings, such as chromate, are produced on various metal substrates to create a protective film that is formed when a portion of the base metal is converted to one of the components of the film by reaction with aqueous solutions containing the metal (such as hexavalent chromium) and other active organic or inorganic compounds. Chromate conversion coatings are most frequently applied to zinc, cadmium, aluminum, magnesium, copper, tin, chromium, brass, bronze, and silver metal base products. Manganese phosphate coating is another type of conversion coating used to increase wear resistance. In this process, the work piece is immersed in a tank with a heated bath that includes phosphoric acid and manganese dioxide for a period of minutes up to several hours, depending on the application.

Nickel acetate, dichromate, and lead acetate sealing are steps that help to seal work pieces to increase corrosion resistance. These processes involve immersing the part in a tank with a heated bath for a relatively short period of time (e.g., 5 to 10 minutes).

Thermal/flame Spraying Processes. Thermal spraying or flame spraying is another type of metal coating operation that uses one or more of the plating and polishing metal HAP. Thermal spraying usually is performed at dedicated facilities that specialize in this process and do not perform the other plating and polishing processes described in this section. In thermal spraying, a metal, such as chromium or nickel, is melted and then immediately sprayed onto a part or surface. Commonlyused thermal spraying processes are flame spraying, electric arc spraying, plasma arc spraying, and high velocity oxyfuel. Unlike the other plating and coating processes discussed previously that involve immersing the work piece in a liquidfilled tank, thermal spraying is performed in a spray booth. Thermal spraying is not a complete substitute for tank plating because thermal spraying can only apply metal coatings to lineofsight surfaces and does not penetrate into the depressions and holes of the work piece as in tank plating.

Dry Mechanical Polishing Processes. Dry mechanical polishing is performed using hardfaced wheels constructed of muslin, canvas, felt or leather. Abrasives are applied to the wheels with synthetic adhesives or cements, typically silicatebase cements. Abrasive belts coated with adhesives and abrasives in the same way as the wheels are also used for polishing. Lubricants including oil, grease, tallow, and special bar lubricants are often used to prevent gouging and tearing when a fine polished surface is required and also to minimize frictional heat.

2. Plating and Polishing Metal HAP Emission Sources

In the plating industry, the metal being plated is part of the product sold, therefore, any metal HAP emissions are an economic loss, i.e., cost, to the facility and are avoided as much as possible. Generally, the primary plating and polishing metal HAP emission sources are the tanks in which plating processes occur.

Electrolytic Plating and Polishing Metal HAP Emissions. The primary mechanism that can release any metal HAP, including the plating and polishing metal HAP, from electrolytic plating and polishing tanks is the evolution of hydrogen and oxygen gas in bubbles that form on the surfaces of the submerged work piece, or on anodes or cathodes during electroplating. These gas bubbles rise to the surface and then burst, carrying liquid with them in the form of a fine mist. In
electroplating, the
[[Page 14131]]
rate of bubbling is a function of the chemical or electrochemical activity in the tank and increases with the amount of work in the tank, the strength and temperature of the solution, and the current densities in the plating tanks.

A term commonly used to describe the ease or difficulty of electroplating a specific metal is its cathodic efficiency, which refers to the ability of the cathode to reduce the metal to the elemental form so that the metal can be plated onto the part surface. The cathodic efficiencies of nickel and cadmium, the most common metals plated in the plating and polishing industry of this proposed rule, are high and on the order of 90 percent or more. Chromium, on the other hand, has a relatively low cathodic efficiency of less than 20 percent. Plating processes with high cathodic efficiencies, such as nickel and cadmium, generate less gassing at the anode and consequently have lower emissions than plating processes with low cathodic efficiencies, such as chromium.

As discussed above in section (1), ``Plating and Polishing Processes,'' WAFS, a common ingredient in plating tanks for purposes of generating a better plated product, also incidentally lower the surface tension of the bath. The WAFS act to reduce the amount of energy released when gas bubbles rise to the surface of the bath and burst, thereby reducing the level of misting and metal HAP emissions from the tank. Because WAFS prevent most metal HAP emissions from occurring, they are considered a pollution prevention technique, as opposed to techniques that control emissions after they occur, such as addon control devices. All nonchromium electroplating baths use WAFS, except for cyanide electroplating. The reason for the exception to this practice is discussed below.

In plating tanks that use cyanide as a major bath ingredient, which are operated at a pH of at least 12, the selfregulating chemistry of the cyanide in the bath causes the bath to operate as if WAFS were being used, which ensures an optimum plating process, as discussed above in section (1), ``Plating and Polishing Processes.'' All cyanide plating baths are composed of cyanidemetal complexes in solution. There are little metal HAP emissions from these tanks because the metal to be plated is either bound in the metalcyanide complex or reduced at the cathode to elemental metal and plated onto the immersed parts. Emissions of cyanide in the form of hydrogen cyanide are also low or nonexistent; these emissions would occur only at pH values less than 12.

NonElectrolytic Plating Metal HAP Emissions. Plating tanks that do not use electrical current have much lower metal HAP emissions than electroplating tanks because the bubbling that occurs from electrolysis is not present. Chromium conversion coating was excluded from the estimates of chromium emissions in the Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) work place rule for hexavalent chromium (Federal Register 71 (39), 1009910385, February 28, 2006).

In addition, the concentration of the metals in nonelectrolytic tanks is much lower than the concentration in their electrolytic bath counterparts. For example, the concentration of nickel in an electroless plating bath is less than one ounce of nickel metal per gallon (oz/gal) of tank contents (less than 7 grams per liter (g/L)) as compared to the concentration of nickel in a nickel electroplating bath of 13 oz/gal (91 g/L). In manganese phosphating, the manganese concentration is less than 1 percent by volume (v/v).

Metal HAP Emissions from Procedures Used for All Tankbased Processes. Procedures that can result in emissions from all plating and polishing tanks are: Bath agitation; placement of the work pieces in the tank; and removal of the work pieces from the tank. Bath agitation typically is accomplished by air sparging (i.e., bubbling air through the tank), or by mechanical agitation using eductors; emissions generally are greater when air sparging is used.

Plating emissions can also be affected by whether rack or barrel plating is performed. In rack plating, the parts to be plated are mounted on racks and immersed in the plating solution, where they remain stationary. In barrel plating, the parts to be plated are placed in a slotted or perforated barrel that is immersed in the plating solution and rotated to ensure even coverage of the plate on the parts. The movement of the barrel has the potential to cause more emissions to be generated than rack plating.

Metal HAP Emissions from Thermal Spraying and Dry Mechanical Polishing Processes. Metal HAP emissions from thermal spraying and dry mechanical polishing are in the form of particulate matter (PM). In thermal spraying, the PM is emitted as excess metal spray that results from overspraying during application of the metal to the product. The PM emitted from dry mechanical polishing results mostly from excess plated metal that is removed from the product along with a small amount of PM that originates from the abrasive material on the polishing wheel or machine. For affected plating and polishing area sources, all the PM described above, except the PM from abrasive material on the wheel, includes metal HAP.

3. Plating and Polishing Metal HAP Emission Controls

As discussed above in section (2), ``Plating and Polishing Metal HAP Emission Sources,'' the metal being plated is part of the products from the plating industry, therefore, any metal HAP emissions are an economic loss (i.e., cost) to the facility and are avoided as much as possible. Consequently, a variety of methods are used by the industry to prevent emissions from plating and polishing processes. These methods are designed to reduce the amount of metal HAP emitted from plating tanks by using what is called ``intank controls,'' that are discussed in more detail below.

Some facilities use addon control systems to control emissions from plating and polishing tanks that involve capturing emissions and exhausting them to addon emission control devices. Control systems are the combination of a capture system and an addon control device. The capture system is designed to collect and transport air emissions from the affected source to the control device. The overall control efficiency of any control system is a combination of the ability of the system to capture the air emissions (i.e., the capture efficiency) and the control device efficiency. Consequently, it is important to achieve good capture to ensure good overall control efficiency. Capture devices that are known to provide high capture efficiencies include hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans.

Addon controls in the plating and polishing industry are used to control water vapor (steam) and other nonHAP tank ingredients that evaporate from the tank. These addon control systems also incidentally capture and control any metal HAP that may be emitted from the tank. In addition, addon controls are used to control PM, which is a surrogate for metal HAP, from thermal spraying and dry mechanical polishing processes. These addon controls are discussed in more detail below.

Intank Pollution Prevention Controls. Wetting agent/fume suppressants, as previously discussed, are ingredients included in plating tanks for purposes of generating a better plated product. The WAFS also incidentally lower the surface tension of the bath and in turn
[[Page 14132]]
the metal HAP emissions, and therefore are a pollution prevention control technique. The WAFS act to reduce the amount of energy released when gas bubbles rise to the surface of the bath and burst, thereby significantly reducing the level of misting and metal HAP emissions from the tank. All noncyanide electroplating baths use WAFS.

Data compiled during the development of the NESHAP for ``Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks (subpart N), hereafter called the ``Chromium Electroplating NESHAP,'' and during a recent study of nickel plating sponsored by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), demonstrated that plating tanks that use WAFS have significantly lower emissions than tanks that do not use wetting agents. The use of WAFS was found to reduce plating emissions by up to 95 percent, depending on the initial level of emissions without WAFS.

Other types of inthetank controls for plating tanks include foam blankets and polyballs, both of which reduce emissions by covering the liquid surface of the tank thereby minimizing the misting that results from the bursting of gas bubbles at the tank surface. These technologies are estimated to reduce emissions by 70 to 80 percent provided they cover the entire surface of the tank bath. The difficulty in maintaining complete coverage of the tank surface prevents many plants from using foam blankets and polyballs as their sole emission control technique.

Tank Addon Controls. Addon controls are used in plating and polishing facilities to collect water vapor (steam) and other nonHAP tank ingredients that evaporate from the tank. These addon controls also incidentally capture and control any metal HAP that may be emitted from the tank. Addon control devices used to reduce emissions from plating and polishing tanks include composite mesh pads (CMP), packed bed scrubbers (PBS), and mesh pad mist eliminators (MPME). CMP, which are used on many chromium electroplating tanks, operate at 99 percent control efficiency. The data compiled for the Chromium Electroplating NESHAP demonstrate that PBS operate at 94 to 99 percent control efficiency. MPME typically achieve 98 to 99 percent control. Simple mist eliminators reduce emissions by 80 to 99 percent depending on design; chevron blade mist eliminators achieve 80 to 95 percent control.

The overall control efficiency of any control system is a combination of the ability of the system to capture the fumes (i.e., capture efficiency) and the control device efficiency. The capture system transports the HAP emissions from the affected source to the control device; consequently, it is important to achieve good capture of the plating HAP emissions to ensure control of the majority of the metal HAP emissions. Capture devices that are known to provide high capture efficiencies include hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans that draw greater than 90 percent of the emissions from the process into the control device.

Thermal Spraying Addon Controls. Thermal spraying processes in the plating and polishing industry are performed in spray booths where metal HAP emissions are most often controlled with addon controls for PM such as fabric filters or high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters. Both of these filtration techniques reduce emissions by 95 to 99 percent, depending on the capture efficiency of the system, as discussed above under ``Tank Addon Controls.'' Water curtains, which achieve 90 percent control, also are used in the plating and polishing industry for controlling PM from thermal spraying.

The large amount of PM generated during thermal spraying has made it necessary for facilities to control the PM emitted at all times to protect the worker and working environment. Consequently, by controlling the PM facilities are also simultaneously controlling the metal HAP, where the PM is a surrogate for the metal HAP.

Dry Mechanical Polishing Controls. The metal HAP emissions from dry mechanical polishing, which are in the form of PM in this process, are controlled with a control system, as discussed above in section II (E)(3), ``Plating and Polishing Metal HAP Emission Controls.'' Historically, the large amount of PM generated during the dry mechanical polishing operations has made it necessary for facilities to control the PM emitted at all times to protect the work environment. Metal HAP are simultaneously controlled as an additional benefit of this current control practice.

The control system for dry mechanical polishing is the combination of a capture system and an addon control device. The capture system is designed to collect and transport air emissions from the affected source to the control device. The overall control efficiency of a control system is a combination of the ability of the system to capture the air emissions (i.e., the capture efficiency) and the control device efficiency. Consequently, it is important to achieve good capture to ensure good overall control efficiency.

Capture devices that are known to provide high capture efficiencies include hoods or any other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. Control devices used for dry mechanical polishing include filtration devices such as cartridge, fabric, or HEPA filters, where PM is controlled as a surrogate for metal HAP. These control techniques reduce PM and metal HAP emissions by more than 90 percent, depending on the capture efficiency of the system. Complete capture of the PM (and also metal HAP) by the exhaust system is not typical in this industry because of the need for the workers to be close to the polishing wheels, which precludes the use of total enclosures.
III. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Do the proposed standards apply to my source?

The proposed subpart WWWWWW applies to new and existing area sources of plating and polishing that use any of the plating and polishing metal HAP (cadmium, chromium,\c\ lead, manganese, or nickel) in tanks or thermal spraying processes; and dry mechanical polishing operations used to remove or polish products with these metal HAP. A new source is any affected source where you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or after the date that this proposed rule is published in the Federal Register.
\c\ Regulated sources do not include chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing sources, as those sources are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart N, ``Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks.''

B. When do I comply with the proposed standards?

All existing area source facilities with operations subject to this proposed rule would be required to comply with the rule requirements for their existing operations no later than 2 years after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The owner or operator of a new area source operation would be required to comply with the rule requirements by the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register or upon startup, whichever is later. [[Page 14133]]
C. What emissions control requirements is EPA proposing?
1. Controls for All Affected Plating and Polishing Process Tanks

Owners or operators of all new and existing affected plating and polishing processes performed in tanks, regardless of bath pH, presence of cyanide, or use of electricity, would be required to comply with the following management and pollution prevention practices: (1) Minimize bath agitation when removing tank objects; (2) maximize dripping of bath solution back into tank by extending drip time when removing the tank objects and using drain boards (also known as drip shields); (3) optimize the design of barrels, racks, and parts to minimize dragout of bath solution, such as by using slotted barrels and tilted racks, or by using designs with flowthrough holes to allow the tank solution to drip back into the tank; (4) use tank covers, if available onsite at the facility, whenever possible (i.e., not during lifting or lowering parts); and (5) minimize or reduce heating during tank operation and when tanks are not in use.
2. Controls for Noncyanide Electrolytic Process Tanks Operated at pH Less than 12.

Noncyanide electrolytic process tanks are operated at pH less than 12 (hereafter referred to as noncyanide electrolytic process tanks) and include tanks that are used for electroplating, electroforming, or electropolishing, as defined in Sec. 63.11510, ``Definitions.'' This proposed rule would require owners or operators of new and existing affected noncyanide electrolytic processes, which are operated at a pH of less than 12, to use a WAFS in the tank bath as directed by the manufacturer of plating chemicals, as an equipment standard. All electroplating baths in the plating and polishing source category use WAFS, except for tanks that perform electroplating with cyanide in the bath. This proposed rule would also require owners or operators of affected noncyanide electrolytic process tanks to implement the management and pollution prevention practices described previously in section (1), ``Controls for All Affected Tanks.''

The requirement for WAFS would not apply to cyanide electroplating and electroforming tanks that operate at pH of 12 or greater, or facilities that comply with the requirement for electroplating for short time periods discussed below. The intank control requirements proposed for these processes are discussed below in sections (4) and (5).

To meet the requirement for WAFS, the owner or operator would operate either a tank with bath chemistry that includes a WAFS or add WAFS separately to the bath. The owner or operator would also document that WAFS are added when each tank is initially filled for plating and polishing operations. For tanks where WAFS are separately purchased tank ingredients, the use of WAFS would also be documented every time other bath ingredients are replenished during the plating process, where the WAFS are to be added in the same proportion as in the original bath.

As a compliance option we are proposing that in lieu of using WAFS, facilities may use control systems that include capture devices designed to capture the plating and polishing metal HAP emissions from the tanks and to transport these metal HAP emissions to CMP, PBS, or MPME control devices. These control systems include capture devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. The use of such capture devices, in combination with CMP, PBS, and MPME control devices, if operated according to the manufacturers' specifications, has been demonstrated to achieve equivalent emission reductions to WAFS, which we determined to be GACT for noncyanide electrolytic process tanks). Addon controls are used to control water vapor (steam) and other non HAP tank ingredients that evaporate from the tank; these addon controls also incidentally capture and control any metal HAP that may be emitted from the tank at a level of at least 95 percent control when operated according to the manufacturer's specifications.

Facilities that would like to use equipment other than those listed above can seek approval to do so pursuant to the procedures in Sec. 63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63, which require the owner or operator to demonstrate that the alternative means of emission limitation achieves at least equivalent HAP emission reductions as the controls specified in this rule.

3. Nonelectrolytic (Electroless) Process Tanks

This proposed rule would require owners or operators of new and existing affected nonelectrolytic process tanks to implement the management and pollution prevention practices described previously in section (1), ``Controls for All Affected Tanks.'' Affected non electrolytic processes under this proposed rule would include but are not limited to processes such as electroless nickel plating; chromate conversion coating; manganese phosphating; and nickel acetate, dichromate, and lead sealing processes.
4. Controls for Electroplating and Electroforming Process Tanks with Cyanide Operated at a pH Equal to or Greater than 12

This proposed rule would require owners or operators of new and existing affected electroplating and electroforming process tanks with cyanide operated at pH equal to or greater than 12, to implement the management and pollution prevention practices described in section (1) above, ``Controls for All Affected Tanks.''
5. Controls for Flash or Shortterm Electroplating Process Tanks

Under this proposed rule, new and existing affected ``flash'' or shortterm electroplating processes are defined to be tanks that perform plating no more than 1 hour per day or 3 minutes per hour of plating time; or use covers for 95 percent of the total plating time. These electroplating processes are performed infrequently or for short periods of time, some of which are on the order of 30 seconds or less, as a quick dip. These tanks would be required to meet the management and pollution prevention practices, described previously in section (1) above, ``Controls for All Affected Tanks,'' which include the requirement to reduce the heat when the tanks are not in use. 6. Controls for Thermal Spraying Processes

For existing affected thermal spraying processes, this proposed rule would require control systems that are designed to provide capture of the plating and polishing metal HAP emissions from thermal spraying processes and transport these metal HAP emissions to water curtains, fabric filters, or HEPA filters. The control systems include capture devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. The use of such capture devices in combination with water curtains, fabric filters, or HEPA filters, if operated according to the manufacturers
specifications, have been demonstrated to achieve at least 90 percent overall control. Based on our surveys and a thorough review of the industry, we determined that the above capture and control devices are currently used by the industry.

This proposed rule would require new thermal spraying processes to install control systems that are designed
[[Page 14134]]
to provide capture and control of the metal HAP emissions from these sources and that transport these emissions from the affected source to fabric or HEPA filters. These control systems include capture devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. The use of such capture devices in combination with fabric or HEPA filters, if operated according to the manufacturers specifications, have been demonstrated to achieve 95 percent overall control. Based on our surveys and a thorough review of the industry, we determined that the above capture and control devices are currently used by the industry.

Facilities that would like to use equipment other than those listed above can seek approval to do so pursuant to the procedures in Sec. 63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63, which require the owner or operator to demonstrate that the alternative means of emission limitation achieves at least equivalent HAP emission reductions as the controls specified in this proposed rule.

7. Controls for Dry Mechanical Polishing Operations

For new and existing affected dry mechanical polishing operations, this proposed rule would require control systems that are designed to capture the plating and polishing metal HAP emissions from dry mechanical polishing operations and transport these metal HAP emissions to cartridge, fabric, or HEPA filters. These control systems include capture devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. The use of such capture devices in combination with cartridge, fabric, or HEPA filters, if operated according to the manufacturers specifications, have been demonstrated to achieve 90 percent overall control. Based on our surveys and a thorough review of the industry, we determined that the above capture and control devices are currently used by the industry. Complete capture of the PM, which is a surrogate for metal HAP, by the exhaust system is not typical in this industry because of the need for the workers to be close to the polishing wheels and which precludes the use of total enclosures.

Facilities that would like to use equipment other than those listed above can seek approval to do so pursuant to the procedures in Sec. 63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63, which require the owner or operator to demonstrate that the alternative means of emission limitation achieves at least equivalent HAP emission reductions as the controls specified in this proposed rule.

D. What are the initial compliance requirements?

To demonstrate initial compliance with this proposed rule, owners or operators of affected new or existing plating and polishing tanks would certify they have implemented the management and pollution prevention practices specified in this proposed rule and are maintaining the appropriate records to document compliance. The owner or operator of a facility that uses an affected flash electroplating process would also demonstrate initial compliance by documenting that the plating tank is operated no more than 1 hour per day or 3 minutes per hour; or that the tank is covered for at least 95 percent of the plating time.

Owners or operators of affected new or existing noncyanide electrolytic process tanks that comply with the WAFS requirement would demonstrate initial compliance with this proposed rule by certifying that WAFS has been added to the tank when each tank is initially filled for plating and polishing operations, according to the manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions. In addition, owners or operators of all affected electrolytic process tanks would certify that they have implemented the management and pollution prevention practices required for all affected plating tanks in this proposed rule.

As an alternative to the use of WAFS, we are proposing as a compliance option that owners or operators of affected new or existing noncyanide electrolytic process tanks use a control system that captures the metal HAP emissions from plating tanks and transports these emissions to CMP, PBS, or MPME. These control systems are known to be able to achieve at least 95 percent control efficiency if operated according to the manufacturers' specifications. Owners or operators can use other devices to the extent those devices provide at least equivalent HAP emission reductions and are approved in accordance with the procedures of 40 CFR 63.6(g).

Owners or operators that choose the alternative compliance option (i.e., that use either CMP, PBS, or MPME), would certify that they have installed and are operating an emissions control system according to the manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions, and that the control system is designed to provide capture of the metal HAP emissions from these sources and transport these emissions from the affected source to CMP, PBS, or MPME which achieve equivalent emission reductions to the use of WAFS. Capture devices include devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. These control systems have been demonstrated to achieve equivalent emission reductions to the use of WAFS if operated according with the manufacturer's specifications. Facilities could demonstrate that other control devices are at least equivalent for control of metal HAP emissions according to the procedures in Sec. 63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63.

The owners or operators of affected new and existing dry mechanical polishing processes would demonstrate initial compliance by certifying that they have installed and are operating an emissions control system according to the manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions and that the capture system is designed to provide capture of the metal HAP emissions from these sources and to transport these emissions from the affected source to cartridge, fabric, or HEPA filters. Capture devices include devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans that transport the metal HAP from the process into cartridge, fabric, or HEPA filters. These control systems have been demonstrated to achieve 90 percent control if operated according with the manufacturer's specifications. Facilities could demonstrate that other control devices are at least equivalent for control of metal HAP emissions according to the procedures in Sec. 63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63.

Owners or operators of affected existing thermal spraying processes would demonstrate initial compliance by certifying that they have installed and are operating an emissions control system according to the manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions, and that the control system is designed to provide capture of the metal HAP emissions from these sources and to transport these emissions from the affected source to water curtains, fabric filters, or HEPA filters. Capture devices include devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. These control systems have been demonstrated to achieve at least 90 percent control if operated according to the manufacturer's specifications. Facilities could demonstrate that other control systems are at least equivalent for
[[Page 14135]]
control of metal HAP emissions according to the procedures in Sec. 63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63.

Owners or operators of affected new thermal spraying processes would demonstrate initial compliance by certifying that they have installed and are operating an emissions control system according to the manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions and that the control system is designed to provide capture of the metal HAP emissions from these sources and transport these emissions from the affected source to fabric or HEPA filters. Capture devices include devices such as hoods, enclosures, or any other duct intake devices with ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, or fans. These control systems have been demonstrated to achieve 95 percent control if operated according to the manufacturer's specifications. Facilities could demonstrate that other control systems are at least equivalent for control of metal HAP emissions according to the procedures in Sec. 63.6(g) of the General Provisions to part 63.

E. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

This proposed rule also requires owners or operators of all affected plating and polishing process tanks to demonstrate continuous compliance by adhering to the management and pollution prevention practices specified in this proposed rule and maintaining the appropriate records to document compliance.

For affected noncyanide electrolytic process tanks that comply by using WAFS, where the WAFS are purchased separately from other tank materials, the use of WAFS would be documented every time other bath ingredients are replenished during the plating process. The WAFS are to be added in the same proportion as in the original bath, according to the manufacturer's specifications and operating instructions. Records would also be maintained of all the chemical additions. The WAFS should be added in proportion to the amounts of other bath chemis

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Dr. Donna Lee Jones, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D24302), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 5415251; fax number: (919) 5413207; email address: jones.donnalee@epa.gov.