& EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
453/R-93-0306
July 1993
Air
Chromium Emissions from Chromium
Electroplating and Chromic Acid
Anodizing Operations-Background
Information for Proposed Standards
Volume II
NESHAP
-------
-4
Chromium Emissions from Chromium Electroplating
and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations-
Background Information for Proposed Standards
Volume
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared by:
Midwest Research Institute
Suite 350
401 Harrison Oaks Boulevard
Gary, North Carolina 27513
-. n r~~,t t-
Region 5, Ubrvy V V^ft(
-------
MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I
Page
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xxii
GLOSSARY OF ELECTROPLATING TERMS xxv
CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY 1-1
CHAPTER 2. INTRODUCTION 2-1
CHAPTER 3. CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING AND CHROMIC ACID
ANODIZING OPERATIONS 3-1
CHAPTER 4. EMISSION CAPTURE AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES ... 4-1
CHAPTER 5. MODEL PLANTS AND CONTROL OPTIONS 5-1
CHAPTER 6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 6-1
CHAPTER 7. COST ANALYSIS OF CONTROL OPTIONS 7-1
CHAPTER 8. ECONOMIC IMPACTS 8-1
VOLUME II
LIST OF FIGURES , v
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xx
GLOSSARY OF ELECTROPLATING TERMS xxiii
APPENDIX A. EVOLUTION OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION
DOCUMENT A-l
APPENDIX B. INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONSIDERATIONS B-l
APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA C-l
APPENDIX D. EMISSION MEASUREMENT AND CONTINUOUS
MONITORING D-l
APPENDIX E. MODEL PLANT PRODUCTION RATE CALCULATIONS . E-l
APPENDIX F. DEVELOPMENT OF MODEL PLANT COSTS F-l
APPENDIX G. ANALYSIS OF ANNUAL PLATING LINE COSTS
FOR THE TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PLATING
PROCESS VERSUS THE HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM -
PLATING PROCESS G-l
APPENDIX H. NATIONWIDE IMPACT ANALYSES H-l
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME II
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES vlii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xx
GLOSSARY OF ELECTROPLATING TERMS xxlii
APPENDIX A: EVOLUTION OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION
DOCUMENT A-l
APPENDIX B: INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONSIDERATIONS B-l
APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA C-l
C.I DESCRIPTION OF SOURCES C-l
C.I.I Hard Chromium Electroplating
Test Facilities C-l
C.I.2 Decorative Chromium
Electroplating Test
Facilities C-28
C.2 SUMMARY OF TEST DATA C-33
C.3 CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING FACILITIES . . C-34
C.3.1 Plant 0--Engineering Analysis . C-34
C.4 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX C C-126
APPENDIX D: EMISSION MEASUREMENT AND CONTINUOUS
MONITORING D-l
D.I EMISSION MEASUREMENTS METHODS .... D-l
D.2 MONITORING SYSTEMS AND DEVICES .... D-3
D.3 COMPLIANCE TEST METHODS D-4
APPENDIX E. MODEL PLANT PRODUCTION RATE CALCULATIONS . . E-l
E.I DETERMINATION OF ELECTROCHEMICAL
EQUIVALENT E-2
E.2 HARD CHROMIUM PLATING PRODUCTION RATE
CALCULATIONS E-4
E.3 DECORATIVE CHROMIUM PLATING PRODUCTION
RATE CALCULATIONS E-9
APPENDIX F. DEVELOPMENT OF MODEL PLANT COSTS F-l
F.I CHEVRON-BLADE MIST ELIMINATORS AND
PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS F-l
F.I.I Unit Costs F-2
F.l.2 Model Plant Costs F-7
F.2 MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATORS F-10
F.2.1 Unit Costs F-ll
F.2.2 Model Plant Costs F-15
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME II (continued)
Page
F.3 RETROFIT COSTS FOR CHEVRON-BLADE MIST
ELIMINATORS, PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS,
AND MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATORS ... F-18
F.3.1 Model Plant Retrofit Capital
Coat Estimates F-19
F.3.2 Model Plant Retrofit Annualized
Cost Estimates F-20
F.4 FUME SUPPRESSANTS F-20
F.4.1 Model Tank Annual Costs .... F-21
F.4.2 Model Plant Annual Costs . . . F-23
F.5 TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PLATING PROCESS . . F-24
F.5.1 Capital Costs for Existing
Facilities F-25
F.5.2 Capital Costs for New
Facilities F-27
F.5.3 Case Studies F-28
F.5.4 Annualized Costs F-29
F.6 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX F F-77
APPENDIX G: ANALYSIS OF ANNUAL PLATING LINE COSTS
FOR THE TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PLATING
PROCESS VERSUS THE HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
PLATING PROCESS G-l
G.I INTRODUCTION G-l
G.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE
TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS G-2
G.3 COMPARATIVE COST MODEL G-3
G.4 OVERVIEW OF COST ANALYSIS G-7
G.5 COST MODEL INPUTS G-8
G.6 RESULTS G-ll
G.7 CAPITAL RECOVERY COSTS G-13
G.8 INCREMENTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRIVALENT
CHROMIUM PROCESS G-14
G.9 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX G G-41
APPENDIX H. NATIONWIDE IMPACT ANALYSES H-l
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure C-l. Schematic of hard chromium plating Tank 6
tested at Greensboro Platers,
Greensboro, North Carolina C-38
Figure C-2. Diagram of capture and control system for
two hard chromium plating tanks tested
at Consolidated Engravers,
Charlotte, North Carolina C-39
Figure C-3. Schematic of hard chromium plating
operation tested at Able Machine Company,
Taylors, South Carolina C--40
Figure C-4. Plan view of Roll Technology Inc.,
Greenville, South Carolina C-41
Figure C-5. Schematic of the control device system
on Tank 6 at Roll Technology,
Greenville, South Carolina C-42
Figure C-6. Cross section of mist eliminator at
Roll Technology, Greenville,
South Carolina C-43
Figure C-7. Overlapping-type blade design for
chevron-blade mist eliminators C-44
Figure C-8. Location of sample sites at Roll Technology,
Greenville, South Carolina C-45
Figure C-9. Side view of capture and control system at
Precision Machine and Hydraulic, Inc.,
Worthington, West Virginia C-46
Figure C-10. Cross-sectional view of mesh-pad mist
eliminator at Precision Machine
and Hydraulic, Inc., Worthington,
West Virginia C-47
Figure C-ll. Floor plan of Hard Chrome Specialists,
Inc., York, Pennsylvania C-48
Figure C-12. Air pollution control system at Hard Chrome
Specialists, York, Pennsylvania C-49
v
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure C-13. Detailed schematic of mesh-pad mist
eliminator at Hard Chrome Specialists,
York, Pennsylvania C-50
Figure C-14. Schematic of hard chromium plating
operation tested at Piedmont Industrial
Plating, Statesville, North Carolina . . C-51
Figure C-15. Schematic of hard chromium plating
operation tested at Steel Heddle Company,
Greenville, South Carolina C-52
Figure C-16. Capture and control system at Fusion, Inc.,
Houston, Texas C-53
Figure C-17. Capture and control system at Fusion, Inc.,
Houston, Texas, after modifications ... C-54
Figure C-18. Schematic of decorative chromium plating
tank tested at Line 4 at Delco Products
Division, General Motors Corporation,
Livonia, Michigan C-55
Figure C-19. Plan view of the decorative chromium
plating shop at Automatic Die Casting
Specialties, Inc., St. Clair
Shores, Michigan C-56
Figure C-20. Diagram of ventilation and control
system for chromium plating Tank 27
at Automatic Die Casting
Specialties, Inc., St. Clair
Shores, Michigan C-57
Figure C-21. Diagram of centrifugal-flow scrubber
at Reliable Plating and Polishing
Company, Bridgeport, Connecticut .... C-58
Figure C-22. Schematic of chromic acid anodizing
tank and Niehaus fume scrubber
at Reliable Plating Company in
Bridgeport, Connecticut C-59
Figure D-l. Hexavalent/total chromium sampling
train D-10
Figure D-2. Sampling train schematic D-22
Figure D-3. Chromium velocity traverse data D-23
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page
Figure D-4. Chromium constant sampling rate field
data D-24
Figure. D-5. Chromium analytical data D-28
VII
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE A-l.
TABLE B-l.
TABLE C-l.
TABLE C-2.
TABLE C-3.
TABLE C-4.
TABLE C-5.
TABLE C-6.
TABLE C-7.
TABLE C-8.
TABLE C-9.
EVOLUTION OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION
DOCUMENT
INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CONSIDERATIONS
Page
A-4
B-2
AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS RECORDED
DURING MASS EMISSIONS TESTS ON TANK 6
AT GREENSBORO INDUSTRIAL PLATERS,
GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
C-60
TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED TO TANK 6
DURING MASS EMISSIONS TESTS AT
GREENSBORO INDUSTRIAL PLATERS,
GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA . .
C-60
CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING
BATK AND MIST ELIMINATOR WASHDOWN
SAMPLES AT GREENSBORO INDUSTRIAL
PLATERS, GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA .
AVERAGE OPERATING CONDITIONS RECORDED
DURING MASS EMISSIONS TESTS AT
CONSOLIDATED ENGRAVERS CORPORATION,
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
C-61
C-62
TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED TO THE PLATING TANKS
DURING EACH EMISSIONS TEST RUN AT
CONSOLIDATED ENGRAVERS CORPORATION,
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING BATH
AND MIST ELIMINATOR WASHDOWN SAMPLES
AT CONSOLIDATED ENGRAVERS CORPORATION,
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR MASS
EMISSIONS TESTS AT ABLE MACHINE COMPANY,
TAYLORS, SOUTH CAROLINA
C-62
TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED TO THE TANK DURING
MASS EMISSIONS TESTS AT ABLE MACHINE
COMPANY, TAYLORS, SOUTH CAROLINA . . .
CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING
SOLUTION AND MIST ELIMINATOR WASHDOWN
SAMPLES AT ABLE MACHINE COMPANY,
TAYLORS, SOUTH CAROLINA
C-63
C-64
C-64
C-65
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
TABLE C-10.
TABLE C-ll.
TABLE C-12.
TABLE C-13.
TABLE C-14.
TABLE C-15.
TABLE C-16.
TABLE C-17.
TABLE C-18.
TABLE C-19.
AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS DURING
EACH MASS EMISSIONS TEST RUN AT
ROLL TECHNOLOGY, GREENVILLE,
SOUTH CAROLINA
TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED TO TANK 6
DURING EACH MASS EMISSIONS TEST RUN
AT ROLL TECHNOLOGY, GREENVILLE,
SOUTH CAROLINA
CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING
SOLUTION AND WASHDOWN SAMPLES AT
ROLL TECHNOLOGY, GREENVILLE,
SOUTH CAROLINA
AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS DURING
MASS EMISSIONS TESTS AT PRECISION
MACHINE AND HYDRAULIC, WORTHINGTON,
WEST VIRGINIA
TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED TO PLATING
TANK DURING MASS EMISSIONS TESTS
AT PRECISION MACHINE AND HYDRAULIC,
WORTHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA . . . .
CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING
SOLUTION SAMPLES AT PRECISION MACHINE
AND HYDRAULIC, WORTHINGTON,
WEST VIRGINIA
Pjige
C-66
C-66
C-66
C-67
C-68
AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS DURING EACH
EMISSIONS TEST RUN AT HARD CHROME
SPECIALISTS, YORK, PENNSYLVANIA . . . ,
C-68
C-69
TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED TO PLATING TANK
DURING EACH MASS EMISSIONS TEST RUN
AT HARD CHROME SPECIALISTS,
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
C-69
CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING
BATH AND MIST ELIMINATOR WASHDOWN
WATER GRAB SAMPLES AT HARD CHROME
SPECIALISTS, INC., YORK,
PENNSYLVANIA .
C-70
DIMENSIONS AND OPERATING PARAMETERS
OF HARD CHROMIUM PLATING TANKS
AT PIEDMONT INDUSTRIAL PLATING,
STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA . . .
C-71
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
TABLE C-20.
TABLE C-21.
TABLE C-22.
TABLE C-23.
TABLE C-24.
TABLE C-25.
TABLE C-26.
TABLE C-27.
TABLE C-28.
TABLE C-29.
AVERAGE SCRUBBER WATER CHROMIC ACID
CONCENTRATIONS DURING MASS EMISSIONS
TESTS AT PIEDMONT INDUSTRIAL PLATING,
STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
C-72
AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS RECORDED
DURING MASS EMISSIONS TESTS AT PIEDMONT
INDUSTRIAL PLATING, STATESVILLE,
NORTH CAROLINA
TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED TO THE TANKS
DURING MASS EMISSIONS TESTS AT
PIEDMONT INDUSTRIAL PLATING,
STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA . . .
CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING
SOLUTION DURING MASS EMISSIONS TESTS
AT PIEDMONT INDUSTRIAL PLATING,
STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA . . . . .
DIMENSIONS AND OPERATING PARAMETERS OF
HARD CHROMIUM PLATING TANKS 1, 2,
AND 4 AT STEEL HEDDLE COMPANY,
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA
AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS RECORDED
DURING MASS EMISSIONS TESTS AT
STEEL HEDDLE COMPANY, GREENVILLE,
SOUTH CAROLINA
TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED TO TANKS 1, 2,
AND 4 DURING MASS EMISSIONS TESTS AT
STEEL HEDDLE COMPANY, GREENVILLE,
SOUTH CAROLINA
CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATION OF PLATING
SOLUTION AND SCRUBBER WATER DURING
MASS EMISSIONS TESTS AT STEEL HEDDLE
COMPANY, GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA ,
AVERAGE SCRUBBER OPERATING PARAMETERS
MONITORED DURING EACH MASS EMISSIONS
TEST RUN AT FUSION, INC., HOUSTON,
TEXAS
CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING
SOLUTION AND SCRUBBER WATER SAMPLES
AT FUSION, INC., HOUSTON, TEXAS . . .
C-73
C-74
C-75
C-76
C-77
C-78
C-79
C-80
C-81
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
TABLE C-30.
TABLE C-31.
TABLE C-32.
TABLE C-33.
TABLE C-34.
TABLE C-35.
TABLE C-36.
TABLE C-37.
TABLE C-38.
TABLE C-39.
AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS MONITORED
DURING EACH MASS EMISSIONS TEST RUN
AT FUSION, INC., HOUSTON, TEXAS . . .
TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED TO PLATING TANK
DURING EACH MASS EMISSIONS TEST RUN
AT FUSION, INC., HOUSTON, TEXAS . . .
Page
C-82
C-82
AVERAGE OPERATING CONDITIONS RECORDED
DURING EACH EMISSIONS TEST RUN AT
DELCO PRODUCTS DIVISION, GENERAL
MOTORS CORPORATION, LIVONIA,
MICHIGAN
CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING
BATH SAMPLES AT DELCO PRODUCTS DIVISION,
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
LIVONIA, MICHIGAN
C-83
TOTAL CURRENT CONSUMED DURING EACH
EMISSIONS TEST RUN AT DELCO PRODUCTS
DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
LIVONIA, MICHIGAN
AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR EACH
TEST RUN AT AUTOMATIC DIE CASTING
SPECIALTIES, INC., ST. CLAIR
SHORES, MICHIGAN
CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING
BATH SAMPLES AT AUTOMATIC DIE CASTING
SPECIALTIES, INC., ST. CLAIR SHORES,
MICHIGAN
AVERAGE PLATING SOLUTION AND FUME
SUPPRESSANT PARAMETERS FOR EACH
TEST RUN AT AUTOMATIC DIE CASTING
SPECIALTIES, INC., ST. CLAIR
SHORES, MICHIGAN
TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED DURING EACH
EMISSIONS TEST RUN AT AUTOMATIC
DIE CASTING SPECIALTIES, INC.,
ST. CLAIR SHORES, MICHIGAN . . .
SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT A:
GREENSBORO INDUSTRIAL PLATERS.
MIST ELIMINATOR INLET
C-83
C-84
C-84
C-85
C-86
C-87
C-88
xx
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
TABLE C-40. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT A:
GREENSBORO INDUSTRIAL PLATERS.
MIST ELIMINATOR OUTLET C-89
TABLE C-41. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT B:
CONSOLIDATED ENGRAVERS CORPORATION.
MIST ELIMINATOR INLET C-90
TABLE C-42. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT B:
CONSOLIDATED ENGRAVERS CORPORATION.
MIST ELIMINATOR OUTLET C-91
TABLE C-43. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT D:
ABLE MACHINE COMPANY. MIST
ELIMINATOR INLET C-92
TABLE C-44. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT D:
ABLE MACHINE COMPANY. MIST
ELIMINATOR OUTLET C-93
TABLE C-45. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT E:
ROLL TECHNOLOGY, INC. MOISTURE
EXTRACTOR INLET C-94
TABLE C-46. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT E:
ROLL TECHNOLOGY, INC. MIST
ELIMINATOR INLET C-95
TABLE C-47. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT E:
ROLL TECHNOLOGY, INC. MIST
ELIMINATOR OUTLET C-96
TABLE C-48. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT F:
PRECISION MACHINE AND HYDRAULIC.
MIST ELIMINATOR INLET C-97
TABLE C-49. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT F:
PRECISION MACHINE AND HYDRAULIC.
MIST ELIMINATOR OUTLET C-98
TABLE C-50. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT G:
HARD CHROME SPECIALISTS. MIST ELIMINATOR
INLET, NO POLYPROPYLENE BALLS C-99
TABLE C-51.
SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT G:
HARD CHROME SPECIALISTS. MIST ELIMINATOR
OUTLET, NO POLYPROPYLENE BALLS
C-100
xxi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
TABLE C-52. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT G:
HARD CHROME SPECIALISTS. MIST
ELIMINATOR INLET, WITH POLYPROPYLENE
BALLS C-101
TABLE C-53. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT G:
HARD CHROME SPECIALISTS. MIST
ELIMINATOR OUTLET, WITH POLYPROPYLENE
BALLS C-102
TABLE C-54. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT I:
PIEDMONT INDUSTRIAL PLATING. SCRUBBER
INLET C-103
TABLE C-55. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT I:
PIEDMONT INDUSTRIAL PLATING. SCRUBBER
OUTLET C-107
TABLE C-56 SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT K:
STEEL HEDDLE COMPANY. SCRUBBER INLET . . C-lll
TABLE C-57. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT K:
STEEL HEDDLE COMPANY. SCRUBBER
OUTLET C-112
TABLE C-58. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT L:
FUSION, INC., SCRUBBER INLET C-113
TABLE C-59. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT L:
FUSION, INC. SCRUBBER OUTLET C-116
TABLE C-60. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT M:
DELCO PRODUCTS DIVISION-GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION. INLET TO CONTROL SYSTEM . . C-119
TABLE C-61 SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT N:
AUTOMATIC DIE CASTING SPECIALTIES, INC.
INLET (UNCONTROLLED) C-120
TABLE C-62. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT N:
AUTOMATIC DIE CASTING SPECIALTIES, INC.
INLET (WITH FOAM BLANKET) C-121
TABLE C-63. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PLANT N:
AUTOMATIC DIE CASTING SPECIALTIES, INC.
INLET (WITH COMBINATION FUME
SUPPRESSANT) C-122
XI11
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
TABLE C-64
TABLE C-65
TABLE C-66
TABLE E-l
TABLE F-l
TABLE F-2,
TABLE F-3
TABLE F-4
TABLE F-5,
TABLE F-6
TABLE F-7,
TABLE F-8,
PROCESS OPERATING PARAMETERS MONITORED
DURING SAMPLING AT RELIABLE PLATING
AND POLISHING COMPANY, BRIDGEPORT,
CONNECTICUT
Page
C-123
ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF COMPOSITE SAMPLES
TAKEN DURING EACH TEST RUN AT
RELIABLE PLATING AND POLISHING COMPANY,
BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT
C-124
ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED CHROMIUM MASS
EMISSION RATES BASED ON HEXAVALENT
AND TOTAL CHROMIUM CONCENTRATIONS OF
OUTLET SCRUBBER WATER AT RELIABLE
PLATING AND POLISHING COMPANY IN
BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT
C-125
AVERAGE SURFACE AREA-TO-VOLUME RATIOS
FOR HARD CHROMIUM PLATING OPERATIONS
TESTED DURING THE EMISSION TEST
PROGRAM
MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS FOR THE HARD AND
DECORATIVE CHROMIUM PLATING AND CHROMIC
ACID ANODIZING MODEL PLANTS -
CHEVRON-BLADE MIST ELIMINATORS
AND PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS
E-5
CAPITAL AND ANNUALIZED COST DATA SOURCES
FOR CHEVRON-BLADE MIST ELIMINATORS
AND PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS ,
ANNUAL OPERATING COST FACTORS
CAPITAL COSTS OF CHEVRON-BLADE MIST
ELIMINATOR (SINGLE SET OF BLADES)
CAPITAL COSTS OF CHEVRON-BLADE MIST
ELIMINATOR (DOUBLE SET OF BLADES)
CAPITAL COSTS OF SINGLE PACKED-BED
HORIZONTAL-FLOW SCRUBBER ....
CAPITAL COSTS OF DOUBLE PACKED-BED
HORIZONTAL-FLOW SCRUBBER . . . .
ANNUALIZED COSTS OF CHEVRON-BLADE MIST
ELIMINATOR (SINGLE SET OF BLADES) . .
F-30
F-31
F-32
F-33
F-34
F-35
F-36
F-37
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
TABLE F-9. ANNUALIZED COSTS OF CHEVRON-BLADE MIST
ELIMINATOR (DOUBLE SET OF BLADES) .... F-38
TABLE F-10. ANNUALIZED COSTS OF SINGLE PACKED-BED
HORIZONTAL-FLOW SCRUBBER F-39
TABLE F-ll. ANNUALIZED COSTS OF DOUBLE PACKED-BED
HORIZONTAL-FLOW SCRUBBER F-40
TABLE F-12. CAPITAL COSTS OF MIST ELIMINATORS AND
PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS FOR HARD CHROMIUM
PLATING MODEL PLANTS F-41
TABLE F-13. CAPITAL COSTS OF MIST ELIMINATORS AND
PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS FOR DECORATIVE
CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL PLANTS . F-42
TABLE F-14. CAPITAL COSTS OF MIST ELIMINATORS AND
PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS FOR CHROMIC
ACID ANODIZING MODEL PLANTS F-43
TABLE F-15. ANNUALIZED COSTS OF MIST ELIMINATORS
AND PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS FOR HARD
CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL PLANTS F-44
TABLE F-16. ANNUALIZED COSTS OF MIST ELIMINATORS
AND PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS FOR DECORATIVE
CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL PLANTS F-45
TABLE F-17. ANNUALIZED COSTS OF MIST ELIMINATORS
AND PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS FOR CHROMIC ACID
ANODIZING MODEL PLANTS F-46
TABLE F-18. MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS FOR THE HARD
AND DECORATIVE CHROMIUM PLATING AND
CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING MODEL
PLANTS--MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATORS .... F-47
TABLE F-19. ANNUAL OPERATING COST FACTORS F-48
TABLE F-20. CAPITAL COSTS OF MESH-PAD MIST
ELIMINATORS F-49
TABLE F-21. ANNUALIZED COSTS OF MESH-PAD MIST
ELIMINATORS F-50
TABLE F-22.
MODEL PLANT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES
FOR MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATORS ,
F-51
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
TABLE F-23. MODEL PLANT ANNUALIZED COST ESTIMATES
FOR MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATORS F-52
TABLE F-24. RETROFIT CAPITAL COSTS FOR MODEL PLANTS . . F-53
TABLE F-25. RETROFIT ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR MODEL
PLANTS F-54
TABLE F-26. RETROFIT NET ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR MODEL
PLANTS F-55
TABLE F-27. LIST OF MANUFACTURERS WHO PROVIDED
COST INFORMATION ON INDIVIDUAL FUME
SUPPRESSANTS F-56
TABLE F-28. PARAMETERS FOR DECORATIVE CHROMIUM
PLATING MODEL TANKS F-57
TABLE F-29. PARAMETERS FOR CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING
MODEL TANKS F-58
TABLE F-30. PERMANENT FUME SUPPRESSANT MAKEUP AND
MAINTENANCE COST DATA FOR THE
42-ft2 DECORATIVE CHROMIUM
PLATING MODEL TANK F-59
TABLE F-31. TEMPORARY FUME SUPPRESSANT MAKEUP AND
MAINTENANCE COST DATA FOR THE
42-ft2 DECORATIVE CHROMIUM
PLATING MODEL TANK F-60
TABLE F-32. PERMANENT FUME SUPPRESSANT MAKEUP AND
MAINTENANCE COST DATA FOR THE
72-ft2 DECORATIVE CHROMIUM
PLATING MODEL TANK F-61
TABLE F-33. TEMPORARY FUME SUPPRESSANT MAKEUP AND
MAINTENANCE COST DATA FOR THE
72-ft2 DECORATIVE CHROMIUM
PLATING MODEL TANK F-62
TABLE F-34. PERMANENT FUME SUPPRESSANT MAKEUP AND
MAINTENANCE COST DATA FOR THE CHROMIC
ACID ANODIZING MODEL TANKS F-63
TABLE F-35. AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS OF PERMANENT FUME
SUPPRESSANTS FOR DECORATIVE CHROMIUM
PLATING MODEL PLANTS F-64
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
TABLE F-36. AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS OF TEMPORARY FUME
SUPPRESSANTS FOR DECORATIVE CHROMIUM
PLATING MODEL PLANTS F-65
TABLE F-37. AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS OF PERMANENT FUME
SUPPRESSANTS FOR CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING
MODEL PLANTS F-66
TABLE F-38. LIST OF MANUFACTURERS WHO PROVIDED
COST INFORMATION ON DECORATIVE
TRIVALENT CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING
PROCESSES F-67
TABLE F-39. VENDOR CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES FOR
CONVERTING THE 42-ft2 MODEL TANK
FROM A HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS TO
A TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS F-68
TABLE F-40. VENDOR CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES FOR
CONVERTING THE 72-ft2 MODEL TANK
FROM A HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS TO
A TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS F-69
TABLE F-41. MODEL TANK PARAMETERS FOR DECORATIVE
CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL TANKS F-70
TABLE F-42. CAPITAL COSTS OF CONVERTING HEXAVALENT
CHROMIUM PROCESS TO TRIVALENT CHROMIUM
PROCESS FOR EACH MODEL TANK F-71
TABLE F-43. CAPITAL COSTS OF CONVERTING HEXAVALENT
CHROMIUM PROCESS TO TRIVALENT CHROMIUM
PROCESS FOR EACH MODEL PLANT F-72
TABLE F-44.
TABLE F-45.
TABLE F-46.
INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH INSTALLING A TRIVALENT CHROMIUM
PROCESS INSTEAD OF A HEXAVALENT
CHROMIUM PROCESS AT NEW PLANTS F-73
PLANT PARAMETERS FOR THE TRIVALENT
CHROMIUM FACILITIES THAT PROVIDED COST
DATA F-74
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES FOR CONVERTING
FROM A HEXAVALENT PROCESS TO A TRIVALENT
CHROMIUM PROCESS FOR THE TRIVALENT
CHROMIUM PLATING FACILITIES F-75
XV1X
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
TABLE F-47. COMPARISON OF PLANT CAPITAL COST DATA AND
MODEL PLANT CAPITAL COST DATA F-76
TABLE G-l. COMPARATIVE PLATING LINE COST MODEL USED
TO DETERMINE COST DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN
THE HEXAVALENT AND TRIVALENT CHROMIUM
PROCESSES G-15
TABLE G-2. END-PRODUCT (PART) PARAMETERS G-19
TABLE G-3. MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS USED AS INPUTS FOR
THE PLATING LINE COST MODEL G-20
TABLE G-4. COST FACTORS USED IN THE COST MODEL .... G-21
TABLE G-5. PRODUCTION RATE PARAMETERS FOR THE
SELECTED PARTS USED IN THE COST MODEL . . G-22
TABLE G-6. MODEL PLANT PRODUCTION RATES ,G-23
TABLE G-7. PLATING LINE COST DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN
THE TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS AND THE
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS AT VARIOUS
REWORK RATES G-24
TABLE G-8.
TABLE G-9.
TABLE G-10
TABLE G-ll
TABLE G-12.
TABLE G-13
SCENARIO 1 - PLATING LINE COSTS FOR EACH
MODEL PLANT BASED ON THE ACTUAL
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM REWORK RATES . . . .
SCENARIO 2 - PLATING LINE COSTS FOR EACH
MODEL PLANT BASED ON THE AVERAGE
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM REWORK RATES . . . .
SCENARIO 3 - PLATING LINE COSTS FOR EACH
MODEL PLANT BASED ON THE BREAK-EVEN
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM REWORK RATES . . . .
INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COST ASSOCIATED
WITH INSTALLING A TRIVALENT CHROMIUM
PROCESS INSTEAD OF A HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
PROCESS.AT NEW PLANTS
CAPITAL COST OF CONVERTING HEXAVALENT
CHROMIUM PROCESS TO TRIVALENT CHROMIUM
PROCESS AT EXISTING FACILITIES . . . .
CAPITAL RECOVERY COSTS FOR EACH MODEL
PLANT REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH NEW
AND EXISTING FACILITIES
G-25
G-29
G-33
G-37
G-38
G-39
xvi 11
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
TABLE G-14. INCREMENTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE USE OF THE TRIVALENT CHROMIUM
PROCESS G-40
TABLE H-l. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES: JOB AND
CAPTIVE SHOPS--HARD CHROMIUM PLATING . . H-2
TABLE H-2. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES: JOB AND
CAPTIVE SHOPS--DECORATIVE CHROMIUM
PLATING H-6
TABLE H-3. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES: JOB AND
CAPTIVE SHOPS--CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING . . H-13
TABLE H-4. COST IMPACT ANALYSES: JOB AND CAPTIVE
SHOPS--HARD CHROMIUM PLATING H-17
TABLE H-5. COST IMPACT ANALYSES: JOB AND CAPTIVE
SHOPS--DECORATIVE CHROMIUM PLATING ... H-21
TABLE H-6. COST IMPACT ANALYSES: JOB AND CAPTIVE
SHOPS--CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING H-28
TABLE H-7. COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSES: JOB AND
CAPTIVE SHOPS--HARD CHROMIUM PLATING . . H-32
TABLE H-8. COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSES: JOB AND
CAPTIVE SHOPS--DECORATIVE CHROMIUM
PLATING H-33
TABLE H-9. COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSES: JOB AND
CAPTIVE SHOPS--CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING . . H-37
xix
-------
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT
A
acfm
acmm
Ah
ANSI
a tin
BACT
BID
CAA
cm
cm2
cm3
°C
Cr
Cr2
Cr6
Cr03
AP
dscf
dscfm
dscm
EO
oF
ft
ft2
ft3
g
GACT
gal
gal/min
hr
hp
in.
ampere
actual cubic feet per minute
actual cubic meters per minute
ampere-hour
American National Standards Institute
atmospheres
best available control technology
background information document
Clean Air Act
centimeter
square centimeter
cubic centimeter
degrees centigrade
chromium
chromium (II)
hexavalenl chromium
chromium anhydride, commonly known as chromic acid
pressure drop
dry standard cubic foot
dry standard cubic feet per minute
dry standard cubic meter
Executive Order
degrees Fahrenheit
foot
square foot
cubic foot
gram
generally available control technology
gallon
gallons per minute
grain
hour
horsepower
inch
xx
-------
in.*
in. w.c,
kg
kPa
kW
L
L/G
LAER
Ib
lbf/ft
m
m2
m3
MACT
mg
Mg
mil
min
MW
NEPA
NESHAP
ng
NSPS
OSHA
oz
P
psi
PVC
RACT
RCRA
RFA
RIA
SIC
square inch
inches of water column
kilogram
kilopascal
kilowatt
liter
liquid to gas [ratio]
lowest achievable emission rate
pound
pound force per foot
meter
square meter
cubic meter
maximum available control technology
milligram
megagram
thousandth of an inch
minute
megawatt
microgram
micrometer
National Environmental Policy Act
national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants
nanogram
new source performance standard
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
ounce
pressure
pounds per square inch
polyvinyl chloride
reasonably available control technology
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Standard Industrial Classification (code)
xxi
-------
TLV - threshold limit value
V - volt
wt = weight
yr = year
xxi i
-------
GLOSSARY OF ELECTROPLATING TERMS
Activation:
Ampere:
Anion:
Anode:
Anodizing:
Baffle:
Base metal:
Brightener:
Bright plating;
Buffing:
Process in which the conductivity
of the part to be plated is
increased.
Current flowing at a rate of one
coulomb per second.
A negatively charged ion.
The electrode at which current
enters or electrons leave the
solution; also, the positive
electrode at which negative ions
are discharged, positive ions are
formed, or at which other oxidizing
reactions occur.
A surface treatment of metals,
particularly aluminum; the part to
be plated serves as the anode and
an oxide film is produced as an
integral part of the base metal.
A device used to regulate the flow
of gas by deflecting the gas.
The underlying metal or alloy
system onto which the plated metal
is deposited; for example, in the
chromium electroplating of steel in
the automotive industry, the steel
is the base metal.
An agent added to electroplating
baths that helps form a bright
plate or improves the brightness of
the deposit.
Electroplating to provide a highly
brilliant or polished-appearing
surface; most decorative plating is
done with brighteners.
Smoothing a surface using fine
abrasive particles in liquid
suspension, paste, or grease stick
form.
XXlll
-------
Burnt deposit:
Bus (bus bar):
Capture efficiency:
Capture velocity:
Cathode:
Cathode efficiency:
Cation:
Chemical fume suppressants
Chromic acid:
Cleaning:
A rough, noncoherent, or otherwise
unsatisfactory deposit produced by
the application of excessive
current density and usually
containing oxides or other
inclusions.
A rigid conducting section, usually
copper, for carrying current to the
anode and cathode bars.
A measure of the effectiveness of a
ventilation system to overcome
opposing air currents and direct
contaminated air from the process
vessel into the ventilation hood.
Air velocity at any point in front
of the ventilation hood or at the
hood opening necessary to overcome
opposing air currents and to
capture the contaminated air at
that point by causing it to flow
into the hood.
The electrode through which current
leaves or electrons enter the
solution; the negative electrode.
Also, the electrode at which
positive ions are discharged,
negative ions are formed, or other
reducing reactions occur. In
electroplating, the cathode
typically is the workpiece to be
plated.
The current efficiency of a
specified cathodic process.
A positively charged ion.
Surface-active compounds that
reduce or suppress fumes at the
surface of a solution.
The common name for chromium
anhydride (Cr03).
The removal of grease or other
foreign material from the surface
of a part.
xxiv
-------
Alkaline:
Anodic (reverse):
Cathodic (direct) :
Emulsion:
Soak:
Solvent:
Colloidal particle:
Coloring (color buffing)
Complexing agent:
Conversion coating:
Correlation coefficient(r)
Coulomb:
Covering power:
Cleaning by means of an alkaline
solution.
Electrolytic cleaning in which the
workpiece is the anode.
Electrolytic cleaning in which the
workpiece is the cathode.
Cleaning by means of solutions
containing organic solvents, water,
and emulsifying agents.
Alkaline cleaning without the usse
of current.
Cleaning by means of organic
solvents.
An electrically charged particle,
generally smaller than
200 millimicrons, dispersed in a
second phase.
Light buffing of metal surfaces to
produce a high luster.
A compound capable of forming a
complex ion with a metal ion.
A coating produced by chemical or .
electrochemical treatment of a
metallic surface that gives a
superficial layer of a compound of
the metal.
A measure of interdependence of two
random variables that range in
value from -1 to +1. The perfect
negative correlation is indicated
at -1, absence of correlation at 0,
and perfect positive correlation at
+ 1.
The quantity of electricity which
passes any section of an electric
circuit in one second when the
current in the circuit is one
ampere.
The ability of a plating solution
to produce a deposit at very low
current densities.
XXV
-------
Current density:
Current efficiency:
Decorative chromium plating;
Degreasing:
Solvent:
Vapor:
Desmut:
Detergent:
Anionic:
Cationic:
Nonionic:
Dielectric:
A measure of the flow of ionic
species at the electrodes.
Expressed as amperes per square
foot, this is one of several
important process parameters in the
control of the overall
electroplating operation. Current
density is equal to the total
current divided by the total area
of the electrode in the solution.
Percentage of applied current used
to deposit metal on a part being
plated; remaining current is used
in side reactions.
Chromium plating for decorative
purposes.
The removal of grease and oils from
a surface.
Degreasing by immersion in liquid
organic solvents.
Degreasing by solvent vapors
condensing on the parts being
plated.
The removal of soil or grease films
that cleaners and etchants leave
behind.
A surface-active agent that can
clean soiled surfaces.
A detergent that produces
aggregates of negatively charged
ions with colloidal properties.
A detergent that produces
aggregates of positively charged
ions with colloidal properties.
A detergent that produces
aggregates of electrically neutral
molecules with colloidal
properties.
A material or medium that does not
conduct electricity and that can
sustain an electrical field.
xxvi
-------
Dielectric strength:
Direct interception:
Drag-in:
Drag-out:
Dummy:
Dummying:
Effluent:
Electrochemical equivalent;
Electrochemistry:
Electrodeposition:
Electroless plating:
The maximum potential gradient that
a dielectric material can withstand
without rupture.
Collection of particles, due to
their size and relative velocity,
by interception with a fluid
boundary around the collection
surface.
The water or solution that adheres
to objects introduced into a bath.
The water or solution that adheres
to objects removed from a bath.
A cathode in a plating tank that is
used for working the solution but
that is not to be used after
plating.
Plating with dummy cathodes.
Liquid which flows away from a
contained space or a main waterway.
The weight of an element, compound,
radical, or ion involved in a
specified electrochemical reaction
during the passage of a unit
quantity of electricity, such as a
Faraday.
The science that deals with the use
of electrical energy to bring about
a chemical reaction and the use of
chemical action to generate
electrical energy.
The process of depositing a
substance upon an electrode by
electrolysis. Includes
electroplating.
Depositing of a metallic coating by
a controlled chemical reduction,
which is catalyzed by the metal or
alloy being deposited.
xxvn
-------
Electrolyte:
Electrolysis:
Electroplating:
Face velocity:
Faraday:
Faraday's Law:
Frequency distribution:
Grinding:
Hard chromium plating:
A conducting medium in which the
flow of current is accompanied by
movement of matter. Most often an
aqueous solution of acids, bases,
or salts but includes many other
media such as fused salts, ionized
gases, some solids, etc.
Production of chemical changes by
the passage of current through an
electrolyte.
The electrodeposition of an
adherent metallic coating upon an
electrode (workpiece) to obtain a
surface with properties or
dimensions different from those of
the base metal.
The velocity of the gas stream
across the face (front) of a given
surface.
The number of coulombs (96,490)
required for an electrochemical
reaction involving one chemical
equivalent.
(1) The amount of any substance
dissolved or deposited in
electrolysis is proportional to the
total electric charge passed.
(2) The amounts of different
substances dissolved or deposited
by the passage of the same electric
charge are proportioned to their
equivalent weights.
A function that measures the
relative frequency or probability
that a variable can take on a set
of values.
The removal of metal by means of
rotating rigid wheels containing
abrasives.
Chromium plating for engineering or
functional purposes rather than
decorative applications.
XXVlll
-------
Heat exchanger:
Hexavalent chromium:
Horsepower:
Inertial impaction:
Influent:
Inlet loading:
Ion:
Kilowatt:
Kilowatt-hour:
Leveling action:
Linear regression:
Liquid-to-gas ratio:
Any device that transfers heat from
one fluid to another or to the
environment.
The form of chromium in a valence
state of +6.
The unit of power in the British
engineering system equal to
550 foot-pounds per second,
approximately 745.7 watts.
Collection of particles by their
collision with and adhesion to a
stationary surface.
A input stream of a fluid into a
contained space or main waterway.
Uncontrolled concentration of the
pollutant.
An atom or group of atoms which has
lost or gained one or more
electrons, thereby acquiring a net
electrical charge.
A unit of power equal to
1,000 watts.
A unit of energy or work equal to
1,000 watt-hours.
The ability of a plating solution
to produce a smoother surface than
that of a base metal.
The straight line running among the
points of a scatter diagram and
about which the amount of scatter
is smallest.
A design operating parameter for
scrubbers that is set at a value to
optimize performance. It is the
amount of liquid flow compared to
the gas flow, expressed in liters
per minute to 1,000 cubic meters
per minute.
xxix
-------
Mist eliminator:
Oxidation:
Packed bed:
Passivation:
Periodic reverse:
Polishing:
Polypropylene:
Pressure drop:
Rack:
Rectifier:
A device that removes liquid mist
or droplets from a gas stream via
impingement, flow-direction change,
velocity change, centrifugal force,
filters, or coalescing packs.
A reaction in which electrons are
removed from a reactant.
A fixed layer of small particles or
objects arranged in a vessel to
promote intimate contact between
gases, vapors, liquids, solids, or
various combinations thereof.
The treatment of a metal to form a
protective coating on its surface
and reduce its chemical activity.
A method of plating in which the
current is reversed periodically.
Smoothing a metal surface with
abrasive particles attached by.
adhesive to the surface of wheels
or belts.
A crystalline, thermoplastic resin
made by the polymerization of
propylene. The product is hard and
tough; resists moisture, oils, and
solvents; and withstands
temperatures up to 170 degrees
centigrade.
The difference in pressure between
two points in a flow system,
usually caused by frictional
resistance to a fluid or gas
flowing through a conduit, filter
media, or other flow-conducting
system.
A frame for suspending articles
during plating and related
operations.
A device which converts alternating
current into direct current by
permitting appreciable flow of
current in one direction.
xxx
-------
Reduction:
Reentrainment:
Reentr.ainment velocity:
Scrubber:
Shield:
Slot velocity:
Smut:
Strike:
Surface active agent:
Surface tension:
Tarnish:
Thermocouple:
A chemical reaction in which
electrons are added to the
reactant.
Reentry into the gas stream of
previously collected particles.
The velocity at which particle
reentry occurs.
A device that removes entrained
liquid droplets, dust, or an
undesired gas component from the
process gas stream via impaction or
direct interception.
To alter the normal current
distribution on an anode or cathode
by the interposition of a
nonconductor.
Air velocity through the opening's
in a slot-type hood. It is used
primarily as a means of obtaining
air distribution across the faces of
the hood.
Anything that fouls or soils the
external surface of the base metal
in electroplating processes;
removal of smut is a critical
initial step in the electroplating
process.
A solution used to deposit a thin
initial film of metal.
A soluble or colloidal substance
that affects markedly the surface
energy of solutions even when
present in very low concentrations.
The property, due to molecular
forces, that exists in the surface
film of all liquids and tends to
prevent liquid from spreading.
Dulling, staining, or discoloration
of metals due to superficial
corrosion.
A device that is used to measure
temperature.
XXXI
-------
Throwing power:
Trivalent chromium:
Volt:
Watt:
Wetting agent:
Workload:
Workpiece:
The improvement of the coating
distribution ratio over the primary
current distribution ratio on an
electrode. Also, a measure of the
degree of uniformity with which
metal is deposited on an
irregularly shaped cathode.
The form of chromium in a valence
state of +3.
The electromotive force that will
produce a current of one ampere
through a resistance of one ohm.
The unit of power in the metric
system of units, equal to one joule
per second.
A substance that reduces the
surface tension of a liquid,
thereby causing it to spread more
readily on a solid surface.
The amount of work in the process
tank at a given time.
The material being plated or
otherwise finished.
XXXll
-------
APPENDIX A.
EVOLUTION OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT
-------
APPENDIX A. EVOLUTION OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT
The source category survey (Phase I) for chromium emissions
from chromium electroplating operations was begun in October 1984
by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The study to
develop a national emission standard for chromium emissions from
chromium electroplating and chromic acid anodizing operations was
initiated in September 1985. Table A-l lists major events and
accomplishments in the evolution of the background information
document (BID) for the standard.
In December 1985, an effort was begun to obtain the
information needed to develop the BID (Phase II). The
information gathering effort included literature surveys;
canvassing of State, regional, and local air pollution control
agencies; site visits; meetings with industry representatives;
contact with engineering consultants and equipment vendors;
industry surveys; and emission testing.
Sixty-eight sites were visited to gather background
information on each type of operation and to identify test
candidates. The number of operations visited within each source
category was 30 hard chromium plating operations; 19 decorative
chromium plating operations; and 6 chromic acid anodizing
operations. Additional site visits were made to six trivalent
chromium plating operations and six control device vendors. As a
result of the site visits, 19 emission tests were conducted at
14 hard chromium plating, 4 decorative chromium plating, and
1 chromic acid anodizing operations to determine uncontrolled
hexavalent chromium emission levels and to establish performance
levels for the various systems used to control chromic acid mist.
A-l
-------
The control systems tested were packed-bed scrubbers, chevron-
blade mist eliminators, mesh-pad mist eliminators, a trivalent
chromium plating process, and chemical fume suppressants.
In order to assess operating practices and existing levels
of control in the industry, industry surveys were mailed to
180 electroplating operations in June 1987. The
180 electroplating operations included 60 hard and 60 decorative
chromium plating operations, 30 chromic acid anodizing
operations, and 30 operations where the type of plating operation
was unknown. Fifteen additional surveys were mailed in
October 1987 to replace those from the first mailout sent to
operations that were found to be permanently closed or that no
longer performed chromium plating. The overall response rate
from the industry survey was 75 percent.
Chapters 3 through 5 of the draft BID, which describe the
industry, emission control techniques, model plants, and
regulatory alternatives (control options), were completed in
February 1987 and mailed to industry for review and comment.
Industry comments on the draft BID were analyzed and incorporated
into a revised version that was submitted to the EPA Work Group
in May 1987 for internal review. The Work Group commented on the
representativeness of the model plants and the need for
additional test data. In March 1988, an evaluation of the
results of the industry survey and information gathered from
numerous plant visits led to revisions in the model plants and
emission estimating techniques. Additional site visits and
source tests were conducted in the second half of 1988 and early
1989. Following the source tests, an analysis of the test data
was performed and used as a basis for revisions to the control
options. As a result of these changes, final revisions were made
to the draft BID during the spring and summer of 1989.
In February 1989, industry surveys were mailed to six
decorative chromium electroplating operations to obtain
additional production cost data for use in assessing economic
impacts. The response rate for this survey was 100 percent.
A-2
-------
In late 1989 and early 1990, new control technologies became
available and were installed by selected plants in an attempt to
meet the strict chromium standard set by the State of California
for large hard chromium electroplaters. As a result of these
developments, EPA decided to obtain information on the new
technologies and gather source test information on these systems
to determine if a more stringent level of control for chromium
emissions beyond that currently demonstrated was achievable. All
information gathered on these new control technologies was
compiled into a separate document entitled Technical Assessment
of Innovative Emission Control Technologies Used in the Chromium
Electroplating Industry. A separate document was prepared
because the BID was finalized before all of the information
regarding the newer control technologies was obtained.
A-3
-------
TABLE A-l. EVOLUTION OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT
Date
Event
10/29/84
12/20/84
03/07/85
03/07/85
03/14/85
03/14/85
03/15/85
03/15/85
04/25/85
05/15-16/85
06/18-20/85
09/25/85
12/06/85
12/19/85
01/07/86
01/08/86
01/08/86
01/08/86
01/28/86
03/13/86
03/13/86
03/18-26/86
03/21/86
03/27/86
03/27/86
05/02/86
05/22/86
05/23/86
05/29/86
06/04/86
06/05/86
06/05/86
06/05/86
06/24-25/86
06/30-07/01/86
07/09/86
07/15/86
08/02/86
Site visit to Greensboro Industrial Platers, Greensboro, North Carolina
Site visit to Gibbs Plating Company, Charlotte, North Carolina
Site visit to Carolina Plating Company, Greenville, South Carolina
Site visit to T&S Brass and Bronze Works, Travelers Rest, South Carolina
Site visit to C. S. Ohm Manufacturing Company, Sterling Heights, Michigan
Site visit to Modem Hard Chrome Service Company, Warren, Michigan
Site visit to Chevrolet-Pontiac-Canada Group, Livonia, Michigan
Site visit to General Plating Incorporated, Detroit, Michigan
Phase I Section 114 information requests mailed
Emission testing at Carolina Plating Company, Greenville, South Carolina
Emission testing at C. S. Ohm Manufacturing Company, Sterling Heights, Michigan
EPA concurrence meeting on decision to proceed to Phase n
Phase I technical report submitted
Site visit to Lufldn* Rule, Apex, North Carolina
Site visit to OMI International Corporation, Warren, Michigan
Site visit to CRECO, Incorporated, Owosso, Michigan
Site visit to Duall Industries, Owosso, Michigan
Site visit to Tri-Mer* Corporation, Owosso, Michigan
Site visit to Martin Marietta Aerospace, Orlando, Florida
Site visit to Saxonia Franke of America, Spartanburg, South Carolina
Site visit to Steel Heddle Company, Greenville, South Carolina
Emission testing at Greensboro Industrial Plating Company, Greensboro, North Carolina
Site visit to Metals Applied, Incorporated, Cleveland, Ohio
Site visit to Able Machine Company, Taylors, South Carolina
Site visit to C&R Chrome Services, Inc., Gastonia, North Carolina
Site visit to Consolidated Engravers Corp., Charlotte, North Carolina
Site visit to Diamond Chrome Plating, Inc., Howell, Michigan
Site visit to Maremont Corporation, Pulaski, Tennessee
Site visit to Piedmont Industrial Plating, Statesville, North Carolina
Site visit to E. F. Brewer Company, Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin
Site visit to Briggs and Stratton, Glendale, Wisconsin
Site visit to G. E. Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Site visit to Milwaukee Plating Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Emission testing at Steel Heddle, Inc., Greenville, South Carolina
Emission testing at Able Machine Company, Taylors, South Carolina
First draft of BID Chapters 3 through 5 completed
Preliminary model plant parameter memorandum submitted
Site visit to Briggs and Stratton, Glendale, Wisconsin
A-4
-------
TABLE A-l. (Continued)
Date
Event
08/19-22/86 Emission testing at Piedmont Industrial Plating, Statesville, North Carolina
09/04/86 Site visit to Reliable Plating Works, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
09/05/86 Site visit to Chrome Craft Corporation, Highland Park, Michigan
11/10/86 Site visit to KCH Services, Inc., Forest City, North Carolina
11/10/86 Site visit to Duall Industries, Forest City, North Carolina
11/23/86 Cost enclosures mailed to scrubber and mist eliminator vendors
12/08/86 Site visit to United Metal Finishing, Inc., Greensboro, North Carolina
12/17/86 Site visit to Hamilton Standard, Windsor Locks, Connecticut
12/17/86 Site visit to Pratt and Whitney, East Hartford, Connecticut
12/18/86 Site visit to Reliable Plating and Polishing Company, Bridgeport, Connecticut
01/21/87 Site visit to Delco Products Division, Livonia, Michigan
01/22/87 Site visit to Buick-Oldsmobile-Cadillac Group, Detroit, Michigan
02/12/87 MRI presentation of test data at AES Chromium Colloquium in San Diego, California
02/12/87 Mail out of draft BID Chapters 3 through 5 to industry
03/03/87 Site visit to Consolidated Engravers Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina
03/26/87 First draft of BID Chapter 6 completed
03/30/87 First draft of BID Chapter 7 completed
04/08/87 Site visit to Norfolk Naval Air Rework Facility, Norfolk, Virginia
04/08/87 Site visit to Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, Virginia
04/18-19/87 Emission testing at Delco Products Division, Livonia, Michigan
05/01/87 MRI presentation on status of NESHAP development to AESF conference in Charlotte,
North Carolina
05/08/87 BID Chapters 3 through 5 mailed out to Work Group
05/12-14/87 Emission testing at Consolidated Engravers Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina
05/13/87 Cost enclosures mailed to trivalent chromium process vendors
06/15/87 Site visit to Naval Aviation Depot, Jacksonville, Florida
06/24/87 Human Exposure Model inputs submitted to Pollutant Assessment Branch
06/30/87 Phase n Section 114 information requests mailed
08/12/87 Site visit to A-l Chrome, Newington, Connecticut
09/22-24/87 Emission testing at Roll Technology, Greenville, South Carolina
11/09/87 Site visit to Lufkin* Rule, Apex, North Carolina
11/24/87 Work Group package mailed
11/30/87 Site visit to Douglas Aircraft, Long Beach, California
11/30/87 Site visit to Universal Gym and Nissen Company, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
12/02/87 Site visit to Engelhard Corporation, Beachwood, Ohio
12/07/87 Site visit to Custom Processing Company, High Point, North Carolina
12/07/87 Site visit to Swaim Metals, Inc., High Point, North Carolina
12/17/87 First Work Group meeting on project status
A-5
-------
TABLE A-l. (Continued)
Date
Event
01/12/88 Site visit to Pitney Bowes, Inc., Stamford, Connecticut
01/13/88 Site visit to Arlington Plating Company, Palatine, Illinois
01/13/88 Site visit to Automatic Die Casting Specialties, St. Clair Shores, Michigan
01/14/88 Site visit to LECO Plating Company, St. Joseph, Michigan
01/18/88 Site visit to Plant ABC, Southeastern United States
01/20/88 Site visit to Monroe Auto Equipment, Paragould, Arkansas
01/21/88 Site visit to Hager Hinge Company, Montgomery, Alabama
01/25/88 Site visit to Saco Defense, Inc., Saco, Maine
02/10/88 Site visit to Vermont American Corporation, Toccoa, Georgia
03/24/88 Revised model plant parameters submitted
03/31/88 Site visit to Saco Defense, Inc., Saco, Maine
04/19-26/88 Emission testing at Automatic Die Casting Specialties, St. Clair Shores, Michigan
06/13/88 Revised Human Exposure Model inputs submitted to Pollutant Assessment Branch
06/30/88 BID Chapters 3 through 7 revised per model plants and available test data
07/15/88 Revised model plant parameter memo submitted
07/29/88 First draft of BID Chapters 1 and 2 and Appendices A, B, and C completed
08/08-12/88 Emission testing at Roll Technology, Inc., Greenville, South Carolina
08/23/88 Final model plant parameters submitted
09/19-23/88 Emission testing at Precision Machine and Hydraulics, Inc., Worthington, West Virginia
10/05/88 Site visit to Saco Defense, Inc., Saco, Maine
10/11/88 Meeting with California Air Resources Board and Metal Finishing Association
12/14/88 Site visit to Piedmont Industrial Plating, Statesville, North Carolina
01/23-26/89 Monitored demonstration tests conducted by California Air Resources Board at
Electronic Chrome Company, Santa Fe Springs, California
01/25/89 Site visit to Electrolyzing, Inc., Los Angeles, California
01/25/89 Site visit to Chromal Plating Company, Los Angeles, California
01/30-02/01/89 Emission testing at Hard Chromium Specialists, York, Pennsylvania
01/31/89 BID Chapters 3 and 4 and Appendix C updated with available test data
02/14/89 Section 114 cost data information requests mailed
03/14/89 Site visit to Precise Products, Waco, Texas
03/14/89 Site visit to Fusion, Inc., Houston, Texas
04/05/89 Draft of BID Appendix C submitted
05/01-02/89 Site visit to Fusion, Inc., Houston, Texas
05/17-24/89 Emission testing at Fusion, Inc., Houston, Texas
05/17/89 Final regulatory alternative (control option) memo submitted
06/14/89 Draft of BID Chapter 4 submitted
06/20/89 Drafts of BID Chapters 3, 5, and 6 submitted
A-6
-------
TABLE A-l. (Continued)
Date
Event
06/29/89 Draft of BID Chapter 7 submitted
06/30/89 Obtained ISB/SDB concurrence on regulatory alternatives (control options)
07/07/89 Draft of BID Appendix B submitted
07/18/89 First draft of BID Appendix G submitted
07/20/89 First draft of BID Appendix H submitted
08/24/89 First draft of BID Appendices F and G submitted
08/30-31/89 Site visit to Remco Hydraulics, Willits, California
09/06/89 Cost enclosures mailed to fiber-bed mist eliminator and ChromeScrub** vendors
01/04/90 Draft of emerging technology assessment document submitted
06/06/90 Work Group Package mailout
05/13/90 Work Group meeting on project status
08/17/90 Mailed out cost enclosures to advanced mesh-pad mist eliminator and extended packed-
bed scrubber vendors
08/18/90 Final trivalent chromium annual cost memo submitted
09/14,17/90 Emission Standards Division Briefing on project status
09/26/90 Work Group meeting on project status
12/13/90 Draft of BID submitted
01/14/91 Docket sent to Washington, D.C.
01/30/91 NAPCTAC meeting
02/01/91 Site visit to Remco Hydraulics, Willits, California
03/20/91 Site visit to OMI/Udylite, Warren, Michigan
03/21/91 Site visit to Harshaw/M&T, Beachwood, Ohio
04/24/91 Site visit to Naval Aviation Depot, Alameda, California
04/25/91 Site visit to Remco Hydraulics, Willits, California
06/14/91 Work Group meeting
06/19-21/91 Emission testing at Remco Hydraulics, Willits, California
09/24-27/91 Test demonstration for trivalent chromium plating process at True Temper Sports, Seneca,
South Carolina
10/30/91 Site visit to Electronic Chrome and Grinding Company, Santa Fe Springs, California
10/31/91 Site visit to Precision Engineering, Seattle, Washington
11/19/91 NAPCTAC meeting
12/16-20/91 Test demonstration at Precision Engineering, Seattle, Washington
02/18-20/92 Test demonstration for fume suppressant at Electronic Chrome and Grinding Company,
Santa Fe Springs, California
A-7
-------
APPENDIX B.
INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS
-------
APPENDIX B. INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS
This appendix provides a cross reference between the Agency
guidelines for preparation of environmental impact statements
presented in the October 21, 1979, Federal Register (39 FR 37419),
and the location of pertinent information in this document.
B-l
-------
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C.
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA
-------
APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA
The results of 11 EPA-conducted chromium emissions tests for
9 hard and 2 decorative chromium electroplating operations are
presented in this appendix. Information about the processes and
air pollution control techniques evaluated and operating
conditions during each test are presented in Section C.I.
Tabular summaries of the emissions test data are presented in
Section C.2. Test methodologies are described in Appendix D. In
addition, the results of an engineering analysis to determine the
amount of hexavalent chromium emissions from chromic acid
anodizing operations are presented in Section C.3.
C.I DESCRIPTION OF SOURCES
A description of the emissions source, data on operating
conditions of the process and control equipment, and a schematic
of the system tested are presented in this section for each hard
and decorative chromium plating facility tested. All information
has been obtained from the EPA-conducted tests cited in
Chapters 3 and 4.
C.I.I Hard Chromium Electroplating Test Facilities
C.I.1.1 Plant A--EPA Test.1 Plant A is Greensboro
Industrial Platers in Greensboro, North Carolina. Greensboro
Industrial Platers is a medium-size job shop that performs hard
chromium electroplating of textile, hydraulic, woodworking, and
laundry machine parts.
C.I.1.1.1 Process description. The hard chromium plating
facility consists of six tanks; however, emissions testing was
conducted only on the chevron-blade mist eliminator controlling
chromium emissions from Tank 6. This tank is 6.4 m (21 ft) long,
0.9 m (3 ft) wide, and 1.8 m (6 ft) deep and has a capacity of
C-l
-------
9,800 L (2,590 gal). Based on size, chromic acid concentration,
and operating parameters such as current, voltage, and plating'
time, Tank 6 is typical of hard chromium plating tanks in the
electroplating industry. The plating solution used in Tank 6 is
a conventional chromic acid solution containing chromic acid in a
concentration of 255 g/L (34 oz/gal) of plating solution.
Sulfuric acid in a concentration of about 2.55 g/L (0.34 oz/ga.l)
of solution is added as a catalyst. About 5,500 kg (12,000 Ib)
of chromic acid are consumed by the plant per year.
C.I.1.1.2 Air pollution control. As shown in Figure C-l,
two lateral exhaust hoods are installed, one on each side of
Tank 6. Emissions are captured by the exhaust system and then
vented to a chevron-blade mist eliminator with a single set of
sinusoidal-wave-type blades. The mist eliminator was
manufactured and installed in 1980 by KCH Services, Incorporated.
The design parameters of the mist eliminator include a gas flow
rate of 280 standard m3/min (10,000 standard ft3/min), cross
sectional velocity of 270 m/min (900 ft/min), and a pressure drop
of 0.19 kPa (0.75 in. w.c.). The mist eliminator contains
31 chevron blades spaced 3.18 cm (1.25 in.) apart. The blades?
are approximately 1.2 m (4.0 ft) in height, cover an area of
about 1.2 m (4.0 ft) in width, and extend 0.2 m (0.8 ft) back
into the unit. The blades are arranged to change the direction
of the gas flow four times at 30° angles. The mist eliminator is
periodically washed with water, which drains into the plating
tank.
C.I.1.1.3 Process conditions during testing. Four
emissions tests were conducted at the inlet and outlet of the
mist eliminator to characterize uncontrolled chromium emissions
from Tank 6 and the performance of the mist eliminator. Test run
No. 1 was interrupted three times, run No. 2 was interrupted one
time, and run Nos. 3 and 4 were interrupted two times each to
unload and reload the tank.
The process was operating normally during the tests.
Process operating parameters such as the voltage, current, and
temperature were monitored and recorded during each test run.
C-2
-------
The maximum operating voltage during testing was 10.5 V, and a
direct current ranging from 1,750 to 8,000 A was applied during
the tests. The gas flow rate to the mist eliminator was
230 nr/min (7,970 ft^/min) during the mass emissions tests.
Average operating parameters recorded during the test runs are
presented in Table C-l. The total amount of current supplied to
the tank during each test run is calculated in terms of ampere-
hours. A summary of the total current values is presented in
Table C-2.
Grab samples were taken from Tank 6 to determine the
chromium concentration of the plating solution during each mass
emissions test run. Grab samples of the mist eliminator washdown
water also were taken to be analyzed for chromium concentration.
The mist eliminator was washed down after each mass emissions
test run. The chromic acid concentration of the grab samples is
presented in Table C-3.
- C.I.1.2 Plant B--EPA Test.2 Plant B is Consolidated
Engravers Corporation located in Charlotte, North Carolina. The
plant manufactures and refurbishes industrial rolls for the
packing and textile industries. The plant operates six hard
chromium plating tanks. Hard chromium plate is applied to the
industrial rolls as the final, finishing stage to provide a wear-
resistant surface and protection from corrosion.
C.I.1.2.1 Process description. The facility tested
consists of two hard chromium plating tanks that are controlled
by a chevron-blade mist eliminator with a single set of blades.
Emissions tests were performed at the inlet and outlet of the
mist eliminator. The tanks are operated from 8 to 10 hours per
day, 5 days per week, 51 weeks per year. The chromic acid
consumption for the two tanks is about 65 kg (140 Ib) per month.
Tank 1 is 1.5 m (5.0 ft) long, 0.7 m (2.3 ft) wide, and
1.8 m (6.0 ft) deep and holds about 1,780 L (470 gal) of plating
solution. Tank 2 is 1.8 m (6.0 ft) long, 0.8 m (2.5 ft) wide,
and 1.8 m (6.0 ft) deep and holds about 2,350 L (620 gal) of
plating solution. The chromic acid concentration of the plating
baths is 210 g/L (28 oz/gal) of solution. The normal operating
C-3
-------
temperature of the plating baths ranges from 43° to 54°C (110° to
130°F). Both tanks are equipped with a circulating water cooling
system.
Tank 1 contains two work stations, each of which is equipped
with a 3,000-A rectifier. Tank 2 is equipped with one 5,000-A
rectifier. Typically, one industrial roll can be plated at a
time in each tank. The operating voltage and current for each
roll typically range from 10 to 15 V and 1,200 to 1,600 A. About
13 ftm (0.5 mil) of chromium plate is applied to each roll.
C.I.1.2.2 Air pollution control. The ventilation system
and chevron-blade mist eliminator were manufactured and installed
by Duall Industries, Inc., in January 1987 to control chromic
acid emissions from the two hard chromium plating tanks tested.
A diagram of the capture and control system for the two tanks is
presented in Figure C-2.
Both tanks are equipped with double-sided lateral exhaust
.hoods. The hoods on each side of Tank 1 have one slot that is
1.5 m (4.8 ft) long and 8.9 cm (3.5 in.) wide. The hoods on each
side of Tank 2 have three slots. Each slot is 0.4 m (1.3 ft)
long and 5.1 cm (2.0 in.) wide.
Exhaust gases from both tanks are ducted together and vented
to a horizontal-flow chevron-blade mist eliminator. The mist
eliminator contains a single set of overlapping-type blades and
is located on the roof of the plating shop. The overlapping-type
blade design changes the direction of the gas flow four times,
causing chromic acid droplets to impinge on the blades by
inertial force. The overlapping edges of the blades act as
collection troughs that provide a central location for droplet
collection and facilitate drainage of the droplets into the
collection sump at the bottom of the mist eliminator. The blades
are approximately 1.1 m (3.5 ft) in height, cover an area of
about 1.1 m (3.3 ft) in width, and extend 0.2 m (0.8 ft) back
into the unit. Design parameters of the mist eliminator include
a gas flow rate of 230 standard m3/min (8,000 standard ft3/min),
gas stream velocity through the blade section of about 190 m/min
(520 ft/min), and pressure drop of 0.19 kPa (0.75 in. w.c.).
C-4
-------
A moisture extractor is installed in the stack to control
chromium emissions that may be drawn through the mist eliminator.
The mist eliminator and moisture extractor are equipped with a
spray washdown system. The washdown water is drained into a
340-L (90-gal) holding tank and then into the plating tanks to
make up for plating solution evaporation losses. The mist
eliminator and moisture extractor are washed down one or two
times per day depending on the amount of plating solution makeup
needed.
C.I.1.2.3 Process conditions during testing. Three
emissions tests were conducted at the inlet and outlet of the
mist eliminator to characterize uncontrolled emissions and the
performance of the mist eliminator. Inlet and outlet testing was
conducted simultaneously. The emissions tests were conducted for
180 minutes each.
The gas flow rate to the mist eliminator averaged 150 m3/min
(5,390 ft^/min). Process operating parameters such as the
voltage, current, and plating solution temperature were monitored
and recorded during each test. A description (dimension and
surface area) and the plating time of each roll plated also was
recorded during each test. The average operating conditions
recorded during each emissions test run are presented in
Table C-4. The total amount of current supplied to the tanks
during each emissions test run is calculated in ampere-hours. A
tabular summary of the total current values is presented in
Table C-5.
Grab samples of the plating solution in each tank and the
mist eliminator washdown water were taken to determine the
concentration of chromic acid in each. Grab samples of the
plating solution in each tank were taken at the beginning,
middle, and end of each test run to obtain a composite sample for
each tank. The mist eliminator was washed down with about 230 L
(60 gal) of water each morning after testing began. Grab samples
of the mist eliminator washdown water were taken from the holding
tank after the mist eliminator was washed down. The chromic acid
concentration of each grab sample is presented in Table C-6.
C-5
-------
Industrial rolls used in the textile and packaging
industries were chromium plated during testing. Typically, the
time required to plate one roll in each work station ranged from
45 to 60 minutes.
During testing, the bath temperature of both plating tanks
was higher than normal. The temperature of Tank 1 ranged from
54°C (130°F) to more than 71°C (160°F) , and the temperature of
Tank 2 ranged from 50° to 64°C (122° to 148°F). The cooling
systems for the tanks were unable to maintain the normal
operating temperatures when the tanks were operated at full
capacity. Although the bath temperatures were higher than
normal, the higher temperatures did not adversely affect the
plating process.
The emissions test runs were stopped approximately 15 to
20 minutes to change test ports.
C.I.1.3 Plant D--EPA Test.3 Plant D is Able Machine
Company in Taylors, South Carolina. Able Machine Company is ci
small-size job shop that performs hard chromium electroplating of
industrial rolls.
C.I.1.3.1 Process description. Emissions tests were
performed on the inlet and outlet of a chevron-blade mist
eliminator controlling chromium emissions from one hard chromium
plating tank. Figure C-3 shows a schematic of the process
tested. The tank is 4.3 m (14.0 ft) long, 1.2 m (4.0 ft) wide,
and 3.0 m (10.0 ft) deep and holds about 15,100 L (3,980 gal) of
plating solution. The plating bath used is a conventional hard
chromium plating solution with a chromic acid concentration of
210 gal/L (28 oz/gal) of solution and a sulfuric acid catalyst
concentration of 1.3 g/L (0.18 oz/gal) of solution. The chromic
acid consumption for the plant is 270 kg (600 Ib) per year. The
tank is equipped with a transformer/rectifier rated at 12 V and
12,000 A. The operating temperature of the plating bath ranges
from 43° to 60°C (110° to 140°F).
C.I.1.3.2 Air pollution control. As shown in Figure C-3,
the plating tank is equipped with a push-pull capture system and
a chevron-blade mist eliminator that were manufactured and
C-6
-------
installed in July 1985 by Duall Industries, Inc. Removable
panels are placed over the top of the tank during plating to
enclose the surface of the plating solution to maximize capture
efficiency. The mist eliminator contains two sets of
overlapping-type blades. The blades are approximately 1.0 m
(3.1 ft) in height, cover an average of about 0.9 m (3.0 ft) in
width, and each set of blades extends 0.2 m (0.8 ft) back into
the unit. The design parameters of the mist eliminator include a
gas flow rate of 170 standard m3/min (6,000 standard ft3/min), a
cross sectional velocity of 190 m/min (630 ft/min), and a
pressure drop of 0.5 kPa (2 in. w.c.). A moisture extractor is
installed in the stack downstream of the mist eliminator. The
moisture extractor consists of a stationary set of blades that
force acid mist or droplets entrained in the exhaust gas to
impinge against the sides of the extractor wall. The droplets
drain down the sides of the extractor into collection areas.
The mist eliminator and moisture extractor are washed down
with an average of 280 L (75 gal) of water at the end of each
work day and at the beginning of the work day if the tank was
operated overnight. Washdown water is drained into a 610-L
(160-gal) holding tank inside the plating shop. The plating tank
is equipped with a float that regulates the flow of makeup water
from the holding tank to the plating tank.
C.I.1.3.3 Process conditions during testing. Three mass
emissions test runs were conducted at the inlet and outlet of the
mist eliminator. Process operating parameters such as the
voltage, current, and plating solution temperature were recorded
and monitored during each mass emissions test run. Data on the
average operating parameters recorded during the mass emissions
test runs are presented in Table C-7. The total amount of
current supplied to the tank during each test run is presented in
Table C-8.
Grab samples were taken from the tank to determine the
chromic acid concentration of the plating solution during each
mass emissions test run. Grab samples of the mist eliminator and
moisture extractor washdown water also were taken at the end of
C-7
-------
the day. The mist eliminator and moisture extractor were washed
down with about 320 L (85 gal) of water after the first mass
emissions test run and with about 250 L (70 gal) of water after
the third mass emissions test run. The chromic acid
concentration of the grab samples is reported in Table C-9. Test
run Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were each interrupted for approximately
45 minutes to unload and reload the tank.
C.I.1.4 Plant E--EPA Test.4 Plant E is Roll Technology,
Inc., in Greenville, South Carolina. The plant is a job shop
specializing in precision finishing and refinishing of industrial
rolls. Operations performed at this facility include hard
chromium plating, sulfamate nickel plating, machining, grinding,
and mirror finishing. The plant plates rolls that are used
primarily in the paper manufacturing, roofing, laminating, and
coating industries.
C.1.1.4.1 Process description. There are seven hard
chromium plating tanks at this facility, arranged as shown in
Figure C-4. On the average, the tanks are charged for a total of
20 hours per day. Approximately 4 hours per day are required for
the change-over of rolls. During a change-over, the roll tha1:
has been plated is raised out of the plating tank, rinsed with
water from a hose, and transferred to the grinding area. Then,
the roll to be plated is cleaned with an abrasive cleanser and
lowered into the plating solution. Plating times range from 1 to
36 hours, depending on the surface area of the roll and the plate
thickness required. Rolls that require longer plating times
typically are plated overnight, and rolls that require shorter
plating times are plated during the day when personnel are
available to perform the change-over.
Tests were conducted across the mist eliminator unit used to
control emissions from Tank 6. This tank is used to plate small
industrial rolls, aircraft engine pistons, and rotary pumps. The
tank is 3.7 m (12.0 ft) long, 0.91 m (3.0 ft) wide, and 2.9 m
(9.6 ft) deep and holds approximately 9,270 L (2,450 gal) of
plating solution. The plating solution contains chromic acid in
a bath concentration of 250 g/L (33 oz/gal). Sulfuric acid is
C-8
-------
used as a catalyst at a bath concentration of 2.5 g/L
(0.33 oz/gal). The temperature of the plating solution is
maintained between 57° and 60°C (135° and 140°F). The typical
current and voltage applied to Tank 6 is 8,000 A and 12 V.
Tank 6 is typical of other hard chromium plating tanks used
in the electroplating industry, based on operating parameters
such as current, voltage, plating time, temperature, and chromic
acid concentration. Although the composition of the plating
solution remains constant, the operating voltage and current vary
with each roll that is plated.
C.I.1.4.2 Air pollution control. The capture and control
system on Tank 6 consists of a double-sided lateral hood ducted
to a moisture extractor followed by a mist eliminator unit
containing two sets of overlapping-type blades and two mesh pads.
Figure C-5 presents a schematic of the capture and control system
on Tank 6. The fan used in the ventilation system is rated at
260 m3/min (9,000 ft3/min).
The four-stage mist eliminator unit was fabricated and
installed by KCH Services, Inc., in June 1988. This unit
replaced the scrubber that was previously used to control chromic
acid mist from the plating tank. Figure C-6 presents a cross-
sectional view of the mist eliminator unit. This unit has a
design airflow rate of 280 standard m3/min (10,000 standard
ft3/min) and a design pressure drop of 0.62 kPa (2.5 in. w.c.).
at a velocity of 140 m/min (450 ft/min). The blade section
consists of two sets of overlapping-type blades. The blades are
approximately 1.3 m (4.4 ft) in height, cover an area of about
1.2 m (4.0 ft) in width, and each set of blades extends 0.2 m
(0.8 ft) back into the unit. Catchments are located along the
overlapping edges of the blades and act as collection troughs,
providing a central location for droplet collection and
facilitating gravitational drainage of the droplets into a
collection sump. Figure C-7 presents a schematic of this type of
blade design. Two sets of spray nozzles (three nozzles per set)
are located in front of each set of blades and are activated
periodically to wash down the blades. The washdown water is
C-9
-------
drained to a holding tank and recirculated to the plating tank, to
replace plating solution evaporation losses. The mesh pad
section consists of two mesh pads in series. The mesh pads are
manufactured by Kimre, Inc. Each mesh pad is about 1.4 m
(4.5 ft) high, 1.5 m (4.8 ft) wide, and 0.15 m (0.5 ft) deep.
Each pad consists of eight layers of mesh. Each layer consists
of interlocked polypropylene filaments 0.094 cm (0.037 in.) ir.
diameter. The first two layers of each pad have a void space of
97 percent, and the remaining six layers have a void space of
94 percent.
The 22-inch-diameter moisture extractor is located in the
ductwork near the ceiling of the plating shop. Because moisture
extractors are designed for the removal of large droplets that
also would be collected in the first stage of the mist eliminator
unit, the overall performance measured during testing is
considered to be representative of the average performance of the
mist eliminator unit alone.
During testing, the airflow rate at the outlet of the mist
eliminator averaged 195 m^/min (6,880 ft^/min), and the pressure
drop was measured at 0.84 kPa (3.4 in. of w.c.).
C.I.1.4.3 Process conditions during testing. Mass emission
tests were conducted at the following locations to characterize
the performance of the control devices independently and in
series: (1) the inlet of the moisture extractor, (2) between the
moisture extractor and mist eliminator unit, and (3) the outlet
of the mist eliminator unit. These locations are identified in
Figure C-8 as IA, IB, and 0, respectively.
Process parameters recorded during each test run were the
plating solution temperature, operating voltage, and operating
current. Data on the average operating parameters recorded for
each test run are presented in Table C-10. The process was
operating normally during emissions testing. The plating tank
was plating two industrial rolls during each source test. The
two rolls were identical in size. Each roll measured 69 cm
(27 in.) long with a diameter of 41 cm (16 in.). A summary of
the total current values is presented in Table C-ll.
C-10
-------
Grab samples from the plating tank were taken during each
test run to determine the chromic acid concentration of the
plating solution during emissions testing. The mist eliminator
was washed down with clean water at the beginning of each day,
and grab samples of the mist eliminator washdown water were
collected. The chromic acid concentration of the grab samples
are reported in Table C-12.
Test run No. I was 3.2 hours in duration, and two subsequent
runs were each 2 hours in duration. Each test run was
interrupted 10 to 15 minutes to change test ports. Test run
No. l was interrupted for 14 minutes because of a power loss to
the meter boxes. However, no other process interruptions
occurred during the test runs.
C.l.1.5 Plant F--EPA Test.5 Plant F is Precision Machine
and Hydraulic, Inc., in Worthington, West Virginia. Precision
Machine and Hydraulics, Inc., is a small job shop specializing in
precision finishing of hydraulic cylinders.
C.I.1.5.1 Process description. The plant operates one hard
chromium plating tank approximately 8 hours per day, 5 days per
week. Typical plating times range from 1.5 to 15.0 hours.
Cylinders plated for more than 8 hours are plated over a 2-day
period.
The plating tank is 2.4 m (8.0 ft) long, 0.76 m (2.5 ft)
wide, and 2.7 m (9.0 ft) deep, and holds approximately 4,810 L
(1,270 gal) of plating solution. The plating solution contains
chromic acid in a concentration of about 210 g/L (28 oz/gal).
Sulfuric acid is used as a catalyst at a bath concentration of
2.1 g/L (0.28 oz/gal). The temperature of the plating solution
is maintained at about 54°C (130°F). The tank is divided into
two plating cells. Each plating cell is equipped with a
rectifier. The typical current and voltage applied to each cell
ranges from 2,500 to 3,000 A and from 4.5 to 6.0 V, respectively.
C.I.1.5.2 Air pollution control. The capture and control
system on the plating tank consists of a single-sided lateral
hood ducted to a mesh-pad mist eliminator. Figure C-9 presents a
side view of the capture and control system on the plating tank.
C-ll
-------
The design airflow rate of the ventilation system is 140 standard
m3/min (5,100 standard ft3/min). The measured flow rate was
125 m3/min (4,430 ft3/min).
The mesh-pad mist eliminator was fabricated and installed in
May 1988 by ChromeTech, Inc., Bedford, Ohio. Figure C-10
presents a detailed schematic of the mesh-pad mist eliminator.
The unit has a design pressure drop of 0.62 kPa (2.5 in. w.c.) at
a velocity of 150 to 210 m/min (500 to 700 ft/min). The mist
eliminator consists of two mesh pads spaced approximately 10 cm
(4 in.) apart. Each mesh pad is 79 cm (31 in.) in diameter. The
primary mesh pad at the inlet of the unit is 6.4 to 7.6 cm (2.5
to 3.0 in.) thick, and the secondary mesh pad at the outlet is
3.2 to 3.8 cm (1.25 to 1.5 in.) thick. Each mesh pad consists of
layers of interlocked polypropylene filaments 0.051 cm
(0.020 in.) in diameter. The thread count is 4.3 by 3.3 per cm2
(28 by 21 per in. ) and the weave type is honeycomb.
The unit is equipped with two spray nozzles that are
activated periodically to wash down the pads. One spray nozzle
is located at the inlet of the unit prior to the primary mesh pad
and the other spray nozzle is located at the outlet of the unit
behind the secondary mesh pad. The first nozzle sprays into the
primary mesh pad in the direction of airflow, and the second
spray nozzle sprays into the secondary mesh pad countercurrent to
the airflow. At the end of each day, the ventilation system is
shut off and the spray nozzles are activated to wash down the
mesh pads. During each washdown, the mesh pads are flooded with
38 L (10 gal) of water at a pressure of 1.7 to 2.0 atm (25 to
30 psi). In addition, the unit has a removable cover that allows
the mesh pads to be removed and cleaned by immersion in the
plating bath. Immersion cleaning is performed once a month.
C.I.1.5.3 Process conditions during testing. Mass
emissions tests were conducted simultaneously at the inlet arid
outlet of the mist eliminator unit to characterize the
performance of the control device in controlling chromic acid
mist.
C-12
-------
Process parameters recorded during each test run were
plating solution temperature, operating voltage, and operating
current. In addition, the number and surface area of parts
plated during each test run were recorded. Average values for
the operating parameters recorded for each test run are presented
in Table C-13. The process was operating normally during
testing. The total current supplied to the tanks during each
test run was calculated in terms of ampere-hours. A summary of
the total current values is presented in Table C-14.
Grab samples of the plating solution were taken during each
test run to determine the chromic acid concentration of the
plating solution during emissions testing. The chromic acid
concentrations of the grab samples are reported in Table C-15.
The mesh pads were cleaned by i version in the plating tank
prior to the first test run. The mist eliminator washdown system
was activated at the end of test run Nos. 1 and 5. The mesh pads
were removed and washed with water at the end of test run No. 3.
No grab samples of the washdown water were obtained because of
the location of the drain pipe outlet, which was 25.4 cm (10 in.)
below the surface of the plating solution.
Test run No. 1 was 3.2 hours in duration, and the four
subsequent runs were each 2 hours in duration. Each test run was
interrupted 20 to 30 minutes to change test ports.
C.I.1.6 Plant G--EPA Test.6 Plant G is Hard Chrome
Specialists, Inc., located in York, Pennsylvania. The plant is a
job shop that plates industrial rolls, hydraulic components,
dies, and molds.
C.I.1.6.1 Process description. The hard chromium plating
line at this facility consists of an alkaline strip tank to clean
the parts prior to plating, two alkaline rinse tanks, an alkaline
scrub tank, and the hard chromium plating tank followed by a
spray rinse tank and by three countercurrent rinse tanks. A
floor plan of the facility is presented in Figure C-ll. The
plating tank usually operates 8 hours per day, 5 days per week.
Typical plating times for each part range from 0.5 to 20 hours.
C-13
-------
For parts that require a plating time in excess of 8 hours, the
parts are plated over 2 days.
Emissions testing was conducted on the mesh-pad mist
eliminator controlling chromium emissions from the hard chromium
plating tank. This tank is 1.8 m (6.0 ft) long, 0.76 m (2.5 ft)
wide, and 4.3 m (14.0 ft) deep and has a capacity of 5,720 L
(1,510 gal) of plating solution. The plating solution contains
chromic acid in a bath concentration of about 210 g/L
(28 oz/gal). Sulfuric acid is used as a catalyst at a bath
concentration of 2.1 g/L (0.28 oz/gal). The temperature of the
solution is maintained between 54° and 60°C (130° and 140°F).
The plating tank is equipped with an air agitation system to
maintain uniform bath temperature and chromic acid concentration.
The maximum current and voltage of the rectifier is 8,000 A
and 9 V.
C.I. 1.6.2 Ai'r pollution control. The capture and control
system on the plating tank consists of a single-sided lateral
hood ducted to a mesh-pad mist eliminator. Figure C-12 presents
a schematic of the capture and control system on the hard
chromium plating tank.
The mesh-pad mist eliminator was fabricated and installed in
November 1988 by ChromeTech, Inc., Bedford, Ohio. Figure C-13
presents a detailed schematic of the mesh-pad mist eliminator.
The design airflow rate of the ventilation system is 110 standard
m3/min (3,800 standard ft3/min). The mesh-pad mist eliminator
unit has a design pressure drop of 0.62 kPa (2.5 in. w.c.) at a
gas velocity of 150 to 210 m/min (500 to 700 ft/min). The mist
eliminator consists of two mesh pads spaced approximately 10 cm
(4 in.) apart. Each mesh pad is 79 cm (31 in.) in diameter. The
primary mesh pad at the inlet of the unit is 6.4 to 7.6 cm (2.5
to 3.0 in.) thick, and the secondary mesh pad is 3.2 to 3.8 cm
(1.25 to 1.5 in.) thick. Each mesh pad consists of interlocked
polypropylene filaments 0.051 cm (0.020 in.) in diameter. The
thread count is 4.3 by 3.3 per square centimeter (28 by 21 per
square inch) and the weave type is honeycomb. Removal of chromic
acid mist is accomplished by direct interception or impaction of
C-14
-------
the chromic acid mist on the mesh pads. The collected droplets
then coalesce along the fibers and drain down the pads into the
drain pipe located at the bottom of the unit.
The mist eliminator unit is equipped with two spray nozzles
to clean the pads. One spray nozzle is located at the inlet of
the unit prior to the first mesh pad, and the other spray nozzle
is located behind the second mesh pad. The first nozzle sprays
into the first mesh pad in the direction of the airflow, and the
second nozzle sprays into the second mesh pad countercurrent to
the airflow. The first spray nozzle uses rinse water from the
first rinse tank following the plating tank, and the second spray
nozzle uses clean tap water. At the end of each day, the
ventilation system is shut off and the spray nozzles are
activated for approximately 30 seconds to wash down the mesh
pads. Typically, 20 to 35 L (6 to 10 gal) of water are used each
time the pads are cleaned. The washdown water is drained to the
plating tank. In addition, the unit is designed so that the mesh
pads can be easily removed and cleaned by immersion in the
plating bath. The immersion cleaning is performed once a month.
C.I.1.6.3 Process conditions during testing. Five mass
emissions test runs were conducted at the inlet and outlet of the
mesh-pad mist eliminator. During this source test program, the
plating tank was operated with and without polypropylene balls
covering the surface of the plating solution. The first three
test runs were done without any polypropylene balls on the
plating tank surface to determine the effectiveness of the mesh-
pad mist eliminator. The two subsequent test runs were conducted
while polypropylene balls covered the surface of the plating
solution to determine their effectiveness in controlling chromic
acid mist. During test run Nos. 4 and 5, polypropylene balls
covered the entire surface of the plating solution. The ball
coverage was two to three layers thick in most places. Each
polypropylene ball was 3.8 cm (1.5 in.) in diameter. There was
no observed dispersion of polypropylene balls away from the
cathode area during plating because of the relatively thick
C-15
-------
coverage supplied by the balls. In typical industrial
applications, coverage is not usually as complete as that tested.
Process parameters recorded during each test run were the
operating current, the operating voltage, and the plating
solution temperature. In addition, the pressure drop across the
mesh-pad mist eliminator unit was recorded. Average values for
the parameters recorded for each test run are presented in
Table C-16. One or two hydraulic cylinders were plated during
each test run. A single, 18-cm (7-in.)-diameter roll, 175 cm
(69 in.) long, was plated during run Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5. This
cylinder and another hydraulic cylinder, which had a diameter of
14 cm (5.5 in.) and was 170 cm (68 in.) long, were plated during
test run No. 3. During plating, no visible misting was observed
escaping the plating tank's ventilation system. During test run
Nos. 4 and 5, visible misting was observed above the
polypropylene balls; however, the mist was captured by the
ventilation system. A summary of the total current values is
presented in Table C-17.
The fan speed was increased after test run No. 1, on the
recommendation of the control system vendor, ChromeTech, Inc.
The vendor felt that increasing the airflow was necessary to
operate closer to the design condition. The inlet gas flow rate
during testing ranged from 88 to 93 dscm/min (3,100 to
3,300 dscf/min). The outlet flow rates ranged from 99 to 105
dscm/min (3,500 to 3,700 dscf/min). The outlet flow rate was 12
to 13 percent greater than the inlet flow rate. The larger
outlet flow rate resulted from an inadequate seal around the mesh
pads which allowed ambient air to be drawn into the system.
Grab samples from the plating tank were taken during eacli
test run to determine the chromic acid concentration of the
plating solution during emissions testing. The mist eliminator
was washed down at the end of each day, and grab samples of the
washdown water were collected. The chromic acid concentrations
of the grab samples are reported in Table C-18.
Test run Nos. 1 and 4 were 3 hours in duration, and the
remaining test runs were each 2 hours in duration. A slightly
C-16
-------
larger sampling nozzle was used during test run Nos. 4 and 5,
which resulted in a larger sample volume collected. The larger
nozzle was used to ensure adequate sample collection for the test
runs where polypropylene balls were in the tank. Each test run
was interrupted for 5 to 15 minutes to change test ports. Run
No. 4 was also interrupted for approximately 4 minutes when the
scaffolding supporting the sampling train at the inlet fell,
pulling the probe from the test port. However, no other process
interruptions occurred during the test runs.
C.I.1.7 Plant I--EPA Test.7 Plant I is Piedmont Industrial
Plating in Statesville, North Carolina. Piedmont Industrial
Plating is a job shop that performs hard chromium plating of
industrial machine parts, industrial rolls, and steel tubing.
C.l.1.7.1 Process description. The facility consists of
three plating tanks arranged as shown in Figure C-14. During the
source test, only the tanks designated as the 23-ft and 10-ft
tanks were operated. The dimensions and operating parameters for
these two tanks are presented in Table C-19. The plating
solution used in the tanks is a conventional hard chromium
plating solution with a chromic acid concentration of 250 g/L
(32 oz/gal) and a sulfuric acid concentration of 2.52 g/L
(0.32 oz/gal). The chromic acid consumption for the two tanks is
about 1,630 kg (3,600 Ib) per year.
The 23-ft tank is used to plate long industrial rolls and
tubing as well as smaller parts. The tank is equipped with one
6,000-A and three 1,000-A rectifiers. When industrial rolls or
tubing are plated, the 6,000-A rectifier is used, and when
smaller and different types of parts are plated, up to four work
stations can be set up in the tank. Three of the work stations
are charged with the 1,000-A rectifiers, and one work station is
charged with the 6,000-A rectifier. The 10-ft tank contains up
to five work stations, each of which is charged with a separate
1,000-A rectifier. During this source test program the 23-ft and
10-ft tanks were divided into two and five work stations,
respectively.
C-17
-------
The concentration of trivalent chromium ions increases to
levels that contaminate the plating baths when the surface area
of the cathodes plated is substantially larger than the surface
area of the anodes. Porous ceramic pots are used to reduce
trivalent chromium contamination of the plating baths. The
ceramic pots contain pores ranging from 0.5 to 1.0 /*m (0.002 to
0.004 mil) in diameter. The ceramic material acts as a selective
membrane that prevents the hexavalent chromium anions in the bath
from flowing to the cathode, where they would be reduced and
deposited. Several anodes are placed around the outside, and a
cathode is placed inside each pot. The anodes and cathode are
both formed from lead-antimony alloy. About 9 V and 300 A of
direct current are applied to the anodes surrounding each pot.
Trivalent chromium ions present in the bath migrate to the
anodes, where they react with oxygen to form chromic acid.
C.I.1.7.2 Air pollution control. All three tanks are
equipped with double-sided draft hoods that are installed along
the length of each tank. The three tanks are ducted together and
vented to a fume scrubber located outside the building. The
scrubber is a horizontal-flow single packed-bed unit that is
equipped with a self-contained recirculation system. The
scrubber was manufactured by Duall Industries, Inc. (Duall)
(Model No. F-101). The scrubber was purchased as used equipment
and was installed at the plant in 1984. Duall personnel
inspected the scrubber in July 1986 and made the following
recommendations to ensure normal scrubber operating conditions:
(1) the angle of the ductwork entry at the inlet transition of
the scrubber should be repositioned to direct the gas flow toward
the center of the packed bed and to prevent scrubber water from
entering the ductwork, (2) the spray nozzles should be cleaned
and the nozzle velocity should be upgraded to design
specifications, and (3) minor cracks in the scrubber housing
should be sealed. The plant corrected these problems before
emissions testing was performed.
The gas flow rate to the scrubber during testing was
290 m3/min (10,300 ft3/min), and the water flow rate was about
C-18
-------
130 L/min (35 gal/min). The pressure drop across the scrubber
was 0.5 kPa (2 in. w.c.). The velocity of the inlet gas stream
at the packed bed was about 150 m/min (500 ft/min). The packed
bed is 142 cm (56 in.) in height and width and 30 cm (12 in.) in
depth and contains polypropylene, spherical-type mass packing
that is continuously washed with water. Water is sprayed through
six nozzles countercurrent to the flow of the gas stream. Behind
the packed bed is a chevron-blade mist elimination section. If
wetting appears on the back side of mist elimination section, the
packed bed is reconditioned to prevent the breakthrough of
droplets.
The scrubber water drains into a sump in the bottom of the
scrubber and is recirculated by a 0.75-horsepower pump. A sensor
is used to monitor the water level in the sump, which contains
about 380 L (100 gal) of water. About four times per day, 95 L
(25 gal) of clean water are automatically added over the packed
bed when the sensor indicates that water is needed to replace
evaporation losses. The scrubber water is drained to the plating
tanks approximately once per day to replace plating solution
evaporation losses. The scrubber is then recharged with clean
water. Grab samples of the scrubber water in the sump, taken
1 month before emissions testing was conducted, showed that the
chromic acid concentration of the scrubber water under normal
conditions is about 1.5 g/L (0.2 oz/gal).
C.1.1.7.3 Process conditions during testing. Hard chromium
plating facilities that use scrubbers typically recirculate the
scrubber water continuously to reduce both water consumption and
wastewater treatment costs and to recover chromic acid for use as
plating solution makeup. The purpose of this emission test was
to assess the effect on scrubber performance of increasing
chromic acid concentrations in the scrubber water.
The target level scrubber water chromic acid concentrations
selected for testing were 0, 30, 60, and 120 g/L (0, 4, 8, and
16 oz/gal). These four target level concentrations were selected
to represent the range of concentrations that could potentially
C-19
-------
occur under normal operating conditions. The target level of 120
g/L (16 oz/gal) was selected to represent worst-case conditions.
Three mass emissions test runs were conducted at the inlet
and outlet of the scrubber for each of the four target level
concentrations. Each test run was conducted for 2 hours. The
scrubber operated normally throughout the test runs. The plant
manager spiked the scrubber water with plating solution taken
from the 23-ft plating tank to achieve the target levels. Grab
samples of the scrubber water were taken from the scrubber
recirculation sump at the beginning, middle, and end of each test
run and analyzed by spectrophotometer at the test site to monitor
chromic acid concentrations. The target and actual scrubber
water concentrations observed during testing are presented in
Table C-20.
The process was operating normally during the tests.
Process operating parameters such as the voltage, current, and
plating solution temperature were monitored and recorded during
each mass emission test run. Data on the average operating
parameters during testing are presented in Table C-21. The total
amount of current supplied to the work stations during each test
run is calculated in terms of ampere-hours, and a summary of the
total current values is presented in Table C-22. Because the
third tank was not in operation during the test, the ventilation
hood for the tank was dampered off to increase the ventilation
rates for the 23-ft and 10-ft tanks.
As shown in Table C-22, the total amount of current supplied
to the tanks during emission test run Nos. 1 through 3 ranged
from 12,000 to 13,000 Ah. For test run Nos. 4 through 6, the;
total current values were 30 to 40 percent lower (8,000 to
9,000 Ah) and for test run Nos. 7 through 12 the total current
values were 50 to 60 percent lower (5,500 to 6,500 Ah) than the
total current values for test run Nos. 1 through 3. The plant
manager stated that a typical work load for the two tanks is
about 6,000 Ah.
The amount and type of work plated during the emissions test
runs varied depending on the plant's scheduled work load. For
C-20
-------
the 23-ft tank, Work Stations 7 and 10 were operated
simultaneously during test run Nos. I through 6. Parts plated
during these test runs included a cast iron part, lease bars for
warp knitting machines, and angle iron. Only Work Station 10 was
operated during test run Nos. 7 through 12. One steel tube
(6.0m [19.75 ft] in length) was plated during each of these six
test runs. Plating was stopped for about 5 minutes in the middle
of each test run to rotate the tube.
For the 10-ft tank, five work stations were operated for
part or all of the test runs except for test run Nos. 6 and 9.
Work Station 1 was not operated during test run No. 6, and Work
Stations 3 and 4 were not operated during test run No. 9. The
work plated during emissions testing included steel shafts and
gears for engine components and steel pins and latches for
packaging machines.
Grab samples were taken from both plating tanks during each
mass emissions test run to monitor the chromic acid concentration
of the plating solution. The chromic acid concentration of the
grab samples is presented in Table C-23. The plating solution in
the 23-ft tank was air-agitated for test run Nos. 3 through 12 to
maintain a uniform chromic acid concentration throughout the
plating solution. The plant manager considered air-agitation of
the plating solution to be normal operating procedure. The tank
freeboard space was maintained at about 15 cm (6 in.), which
prevented plating solution from splashing into the ventilation
hoods.
Sampling at the inlet and outlet was interrupted only once
to change test ports except for test run No. 11, which was
interrupted four times. Test run No. 11 was first interrupted
after 3 minutes of testing for 38 minutes to increase the chromic
acid concentration of the scrubber water, a second and third time
for a total of 12 minutes at the inlet and 8 minutes at the
outlet during the first hour of testing, and a fourth time to
change test ports between the first and second hour of testing.
Test run No. 11 was not interrupted during the second hour of
testing. Port changes at the inlet took from 3 to 8 minutes
C-21
-------
except for those during test run Nos. 2 and 3, which took 17 and
39 minutes, respectively. Port changes at the outlet took from 2
to 8 minutes.
C.I.1.8 Plant K--EPA Test.8 Plant K is Steel Heddle
Company, in Greenville, South Carolina. Steel Heddle is an
original equipment manufacturer of steel heddles for textile
looms. The plating facility is operated both on a captive and a
job shop basis. Reeds and combs for textile looms and
miscellaneous parts from outside customers undergo hard chromium
plating.
C.1.1.8.1 Process description. The chromium plating
facility consists of four tanks, arranged as shown in
Figure C-15. Based on size; operating parameters such as
current, voltage, and plating time; and chromic acid
concentrations, all four tanks are typical of other hard chromium
plating tanks used in the electroplating industry. During this
source test, Tanks 1, 2, and 4 were operated. The dimensions and
operating parameters for these tanks are presented in Table C-24.
The plating solution used in the tanks is a conventional hard
chromium plating solution with a chromic acid concentration of
250 g/L (33 oz/gal) and a sulfuric acid catalyst concentraticn of
2.5 g/L (0.33 oz/gal). The chromic acid consumption for the
plant is 1,500 kg (3,300 Ib) per year.
C.1.1.8.2 Air pollution control. Tanks 1 and 4 are
equipped with push-pull emission capture systems, and Tank 2 is
equipped with a single-sided draft hood. Emissions from all
three tanks are ducted to a scrubber system that is located on
the roof of the plating shop. The scrubber is a horizontal-flow,
double packed-bed unit manufactured by KCH Services, Inc. (Model
No. H-200D). The scrubber was installed in 1981. The design gas
flow rate of the scrubber is 540 standard m3/min (19,000 standard
ft3/min). The design pressure drop is 0.75 kPa (3 in. w.c.).
Six nozzles located in front of each packed bed spray water
continuously countercurrent to the flow of the gas stream.
Chromic acid mist that impinges on the packing material is wetshed
to the bottom of the scrubber. The packed beds are 30.5 cm
C-22
-------
(12 in.) deep and are filled with polypropylene, spherical-type
mass packing. The scrubber also contains a chevron-blade mist
elimination section located downstream of the second packed bed.
The scrubber water flows by gravity from the scrubber to a
910-L (240-gal) recirculation tank located inside the plating
shop. Clean water is used to replace evaporation losses from the
system. The ductwork is washed down once per month with water
that subsequently drains into the plating tanks.
C.I.1.8.3 Process conditions during testing. Three mass
emissions tests were conducted at the inlet and outlet of the
scrubber to characterize the uncontrolled emissions from the
three hard chromium plating tanks and the performance of the
scrubber. The process was operating normally during the tests.
Process operating parameters such as the voltage, current, and
plating solution temperature were monitored and recorded during
each mass emission test run. Data on the average operating
parameters recorded are presented in Table C-25. The total
amount of current supplied to the tanks during each test run is
calculated in terms of ampere-hours, and a summary of the total
current values is presented in Table C-26. In addition, the
pressure drop across the scrubber was monitored and averaged
0.7 kPa (2.9 in. w.c.) during test run No. 1 and 0.8 kPa (3.2 in.
w.c.) during test run Nos. 2 and 3. Sampling interruptions
during the test runs were minor. All three test runs were
interrupted for 15 to 20 minutes for port changes. Test run
Nos. 2 and 3 were interrupted one additional time for 30 and
45 minutes, respectively, during shift changes.
Grab samples were taken from each tank tested and from the
scrubber recirculation tank to determine the chromium
concentration of the plating solution and recirculation water
during each test run. The chromic acid concentration of the grab
samples is reported in Table C-27.
C.I.1.9 Plant L--EPA Test.^ Plant L is Fusion, Inc., in
Houston, Texas. It is a job shop that specializes in hard
chromium electroplating of crankshafts.
C-23
-------
C.I. 1.9.1 Process description. The plating shop consists
of five hard chromium plating tanks that are operated 24 hours
per day, 7 days per week, and 52 weeks per year. The plating
tank {No. 1) tested during this source test program is 9.1 m
(30 ft) long, l.l m (3.5 ft) wide, and 1.2 m (4.0 ft) deep, and
holds approximately 10,400 L (2,750 gal) of plating solution.
The plating tank is equipped with a single rectifier rated at
15 V and 8,000 A. The tank contains a conventional hard chromium
plating solution consisting of 240 g/L (32 oz/gal) of chromic
acid and 2.4 g/L (0.32 oz/gal) of sulfuric acid. The plating
solution is maintained at 54°C (130°F).
The only portions of the crankshafts that are plated are the
cams. The crankshafts contained from 5 to 15 cams.
Semicircular-shaped anodes are positioned over each cam on the
crankshaft. The crankshaft is then lowered by hoist into the
plating tank. The anodes are connected to the electrical
circuit, and the current and voltage are applied stepwise until
the current density reaches 3,100 A/m2 (2 A/in.2). During
plating, each crankshaft is rotated continuously in the tank to
ensure that an even plate thickness is applied over the entire
surface area of each cam. Typically, two to three crankshafts
are plated simultaneously over a 24-hour period at a current
loading of 3,000 to 4,000 A.
The plating tank tested is typical of other hard chromium
plating tanks used in the electroplating industry with regard to
size; operating parameters such as current, voltage, and plating
time; and chromic acid concentration of the plating bath.
C.I.1.9.2 Air pollution control. The capture and control
system on the plating tank consists of a double-sided draft hood
that is vented to a horizontal-flow single packed-bed scrubber.
Figure C-16 presents a schematic of the capture and control
system on the plating tank.
The scrubber was manufactured by Duall Industries, Inc.,
(Model No. F-101) and installed in 1988. The design gas flow
rate to the scrubber is 450 m3/min (16,000 ft3/min). The
scrubbing water flow rate is approximately 180 L/min
C-24
-------
(50 gal/min). The design pressure drop across the scrubber is
0.5 kPa (2.0 in. w.c.).
Within the scrubber system, the velocity of the gas stream
is reduced to approximately 130 m/min (440 ft/min), and the gas
stream is humidified by a spray of water. Water is sprayed
countercurrent to the flow of the gas stream through 10 spray
nozzles. The saturated gas stream then passes through a packed
bed of polypropylene, spherical-type mass packing. The packed
bed is wetted continuously with scrubbing water supplied by the
series of spray nozzles in front of the bed. The packed bed is
approximately 2.0 m (6.4 ft) high, 1.9 m (6.2 ft) wide, and
0.30 m (1.0 ft) deep. Entrained mist and water droplets impinge
on the packing and drain into the sump. Behind the packed bed is
a two-stage mist elimination section that removes entrained water
droplets. The first stage allows large droplets to settle by
gravity to the bottom of the scrubber. The second stage contains
a series of vertically mounted chevron blades that change the
direction of the gas flow four times at 30° angles, which causes
any entrained droplets to impinge on the blades. The mist
eliminator is not washed down.
The scrubber water drains into a sump in the bottom of the
scrubber and is recirculated by a pump. A level indicator (sight
gauge) is used to monitor the water level in the sump, which
holds approximately 450 L (120 gal) of water. Once a week, the
water in the sump is drained into a 5,680-L (1,500-gal) holding
tank and the sump is recharged with fresh water. During testing,
the chromic acid concentration of the water samples taken from
the sump averaged 0.08 g/L (0.01 oz/gal). Although the plating
tank is operated 24 hours per day, the recirculation system on
the scrubber is turned off from 11:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m., when
there are no plant employees onsite.
Prior to emissions testing, the scrubber was retrofitted
with an overhead weir so that the scrubber could be operated with
and without periodic washdown of the scrubber packing with fresh
water. The scrubber was also moved back approximately 1.5 m
(5.0 ft) and a section of duct was inserted between the plating
C-25
-------
tank exhaust plenum and the inlet of the scrubber to accommodate
inlet testing. A stack was also added to the fan to accommodate
outlet testing. Figure C-17 presents a schematic of the capture
and control system on the plating tank after modifications.
Duall Industries, Inc., the manufacturer of the scrubber,
performed the modifications on the ventilation system and
scrubber in addition to inspecting the scrubber to ensure proper
operation.
C.I.1.9.3 Process conditions during testing. The primary
purpose of this source test was to determine if the periodic
flooding action provided by the scrubber overhead weir system
could significantly improve the scrubber performance. Therefore,
three mass emissions test runs were conducted at the inlet and
outlet of the scrubber at each of the following conditions:
(1) the scrubber recirculation system was in operation and any
required makeup water was supplied by a hose through one of the
scrubber's inspection doors, and (2) the scrubber recirculation
system was in operation and all required makeup water was
supplied through a pipe that extended out about 10 to 13 cm (4 to
5 in.) over the top of the packed bed. Two subsequent test runs
were conducted at the inlet and outlet of the scrubber with the
scrubber recirculation system in operation and a continuous flow
of fresh water supplied through the overhead weir at a rate of
7.6 L/min (2.0 gal/min).
Prior to test run Nos. 1 and 3, the sump in the bottom of
the scrubber was drained to the holding tank and the sump was
recharged with fresh water supplied by a hose through one of the
scrubber's inspection doors. During test run Nos. 1 through 3,
makeup water required by the scrubber to replace evaporation
losses was added through the inspection doors with a water hose.
Prior to test run No. 4, the scrubber was inspected and found to
contain a heavy buildup of chromic acid resulting from the
overnight shutdown of the recirculation system. Therefore, the
scrubber was thoroughly cleaned by draining the sump and washing
down the inside walls, packing media, and mist elimination
section with a pressurized water hose. During test run Nos. 4
C-26
-------
through 6, makeup water required by the scrubber to replace
evaporation losses was supplied through the pipe located over the
top of the packed bed. Prior to test run No. 7, the scrubber was
cleaned again. During test run Nos. 7 and 8, makeup water was
added continuously over the top of the packed bed through the
overhead weir at a flow rate of 7.6 L/min (2.0 gal/min).
The scrubber parameters monitored during testing were the
pressure drop across the scrubber, the frequency, and, if
possible, the amount of makeup water added, the chromic acid
concentration of the scrubber water, and, when applicable, the
overhead water flow rate. The actual inlet gas flow rate to the
scrubber during testing averaged 575 m3/min (20,300 ft3/min), and
the monitored pressure drop was close to the design pressure drop
of 0.5 kPa (2.0 in. w.c.). The average scrubber parameters
monitored during each test run are presented in Table C-28. Grab
samples of the scrubber water were taken from the sump at the end
of each test run. Grab samples of the plating solution were
taken at the beginning, middle, and end of each test run to
determine the chromic acid concentration of the solution during
testing. The chromic acid concentrations of the scrubber water
samples and the composite plating solution samples are presented
in Table C-29.
The process was operating normally during the test. Process
operating parameters such as the voltage, current, and plating
solution temperature were monitored and recorded during each test
run. Also recorded were the number and approximate size of the
crankshafts in the plating tank during each test run. Averages
for the operating parameters recorded are presented in
Table C-30. The total amount of current supplied to the plating
tank during each test run is calculated in terms of ampere-hours
based on the duration of sampling at the inlet and outlet test
locations. Information on the total ampere-hours supplied to the
plating tank during each test run is presented in Table C-31.
The emissions test runs were interrupted for 10 to
25 minutes to change test ports. Test run No. 1 was interrupted
for approximately 3 hours because of an electrical problem in the
C-27
-------
plating line, which resulted from a current overload. Test run
No. 2 was interrupted for 8 minutes because of a problem with.
maintaining the isokinetic sampling rate at the outlet test
location.
C.I.2 Decorative Chromium Electroplating Test Facilities
C.I.2.1 Plant M--EPA Test.10 Plant M is Delco Products
Division, General Motors Corporation, located in Livonia,
Michigan. The facility is a large captive shop that performs!
decorative chromium electroplating of automobile bumpers.
C.I.2.1.1 Process description. The plating facility
consists of five decorative chromium plating lines, but only
three lines (Nos. 2, 4, and 5) were being operated at the time of
the tests. Each plating line consists of about 20 tanks
containing various cleaning and plating solutions. The lines are
serviced by automatically controlled overhead conveyors that
transfer racks of up to 14 bumpers to each tank in a programmed
sequence. The chromium plating segment of each line consists of
a plating tank and several rinse tanks.
The chromium plating tank on Line No. 4 was tested to
characterize uncontrolled emissions. Based on size; operating
parameters such as current, voltage, and plating time; and
chromic acid concentration, the tank is typical of other large
decorative chromium plating tanks used in the electroplating
industry. The chromium plating tank is 6.1 m (20 ft) long, 3.7m
(12 ft) wide, and 2.7 m (9 ft) deep and is divided into three
cells that are each 2.0 m (6.7 ft) long. The tank holds
approximately 61,170 L (16,160 gal) of plating solution, which
contains chromic acid in a bath concentration ranging from 247 to
374 g/L (33 to 50 oz/gal). Sulfuric acid is used as a catalyst
in a chromic acid-to-sulfuric acid ratio of 180:1.
Line No. 4 is operated 16 hours per day, 5 days per week.
Typically, two or three cells are operated at a time. One rack
of bumpers is plated per cell for about 2.25 minutes. Each
bumper receives a chromium plate that is 0.305 /xm (0.012 mil;
thick. Two separate transformer/rectifiers charge the electrodes
in each cell. For the first 15 seconds of plating, the surface
C-28
-------
of the bumpers is activated. During activation, each rectifier
is set at 5 to 6 V and 2,500 to 3,000 A. After activation, the
actual plating phase of the cycle begins. During plating, each
rectifier is set at 16 to 17 V and 8,500 to 10,000 A. The
electrical settings are determined by the required current
density for a particular rack of bumpers. Typical current
densities range from 1,615 to 2,150 A/m2 (150 to 200 A/ft2) of
surface area.
C.I.2.1.2 Air pollution control. The chromium plating tank
on Line No. 4 is equipped with single-sided draft hoods on each
end and double-sided draft hoods between each cell (see
Figure C-18). The hoods on the tank are connected to a common
duct that leads to an extensive evaporator/scrubber system. The
total ventilation rate is about 990 m3/min (35,000 ft3/min).
C.I.2.1.3 Process conditions during testing. Three test
runs were conducted at the inlet of the evaporator/scrubber to
characterize the uncontrolled emissions from the decorative
chromium plating tank. The process was operated within normal
limits during each test run.
Process operating parameters such as voltage, current, and
plating solution temperature were monitored and recorded during
each test run. The number of plating cycles and the number of
bumpers plated also were recorded for each test run. Average
values for the operating conditions recorded during each emission
test run are presented in Table C-32.
In addition, grab samples of the plating solution were taken
from each cell in the tank during the course of each test run to
determine the chromic acid concentration. The chromic acid
concentrations of the grab samples are presented in Table C-33.
Test run No. 1 was interrupted for 13 minutes for electrical
repairs on the plating-line. Test run No. 2 was interrupted
three times for 51, 3, and 11 minutes. The 3-minute interruption
was caused by delays at the racking station where bumpers are
mounted on the racks. The other two interruptions occurred when
the process was stopped for repair. Test run No. 3 was
interrupted three times for 3, 5, and 165 minutes. The
C-29
-------
interruptions were a result of malfunctions with the overhead
conveyor.
The total amount of current supplied to the tank during each
test run is calculated in terms of ampere-hours. A tabular
summary of the total current values is presented in Table C-34.
C.I.2.2 Plant N--EPA Test.11 Plant N is Automatic Die
Casting Specialties, Inc., St. Clair Shores, Michigan. The plant
is a small job shop that performs decorative chromium
electroplating of automotive trim. The plating facility consists
of two decorative chromium plating lines: the main plating line
and a rework plating line.
C.1.2.2.1 Process description. The chromium plating tank
in the main plating line was tested to evaluate the performance
of fume suppressants in reducing chromic acid mist. A process
flow diagram for the main plating line is shown in Figure C-19.
The main plating line consists of a series of tanks used for
cleaning and plating the parts. Parts are plated with layers of
copper and nickel before they are chromium plated. The chromium
plating segment of the line consists of a chromium predip, a
plating tank, a chromium saver tank, and three bisulfite rinse
tanks. The plating line is serviced by an automatically
controlled overhead conveyor that transfers racks of parts to
each tank in a programmed sequence.
The chromium plating tank is 3.4 m (11.0 ft) long, 0.85 m
(2.8 ft) wide, and 1.5 m (5.0 ft) deep and is divided into six
cells that are each 0.55 m (1.8 ft) long. The plating tank holds
approximately 3,940 L (1,040 gal) of plating solution, which
contains chromic acid in a bath concentration of 280 g/L
(37 oz/gal). The plating solution contains both fluoride and
sulfuric acid catalysts. The temperature of the plating bath is
maintained between 43° and 47°C (110° and 116°F).
The plating line operates 20 hours per day, 4 days per week.
Six racks of parts are plated in the chromium plating tank at a
time with a retention time of 3 minutes and 35 seconds for each
rack. The tank is equipped with three rectifiers. For the first
15 seconds of plating, the parts are activated. During
C-30
-------
activation, the rectifier connected to Cell No. 1 is operated at
0 to 5 V and 0 to 200 A. After activation, the racks are
automatically moved toward the center of the plating tank.
During plating, the rectifier connected to Cell Nos. 2 through 5
is set at 5.2 V and 3,000 A. The rectifier connected to Cell
No. 6 is set at 3.0 V and minimal to no current.
C.I.2.2.2 Air pollution control. The chromium plating tank
is equipped with a single-sided draft hood. The exhaust gases
captured by the hood are ducted to a vertical-flow, single
packed-bed scrubber manufactured and installed by Duall
Industries, Inc., in 1979. Two other tanks, the alkaline soak
tank in the main plating line and the chromium plating tank in
the rework plating line, are also vented to the scrubber through
a common duct. Figure C-20 presents a diagram of the ventilation
and control system. The total airflow rate to the scrubber from
the three hoods is 130 m3/min (4,700 ft3/min). The hood on the
alkaline soak tank was blocked off during testing to increase the
airflow rate through the hood on the chromium plating tank.
A fume suppressant, Quin-Tec Cam Nos. 3 and 4, manufactured
by 3M Corporation and sold by Quin-Tec, Inc., in Warren,
Michigan, is normally used to reduce chromic acid mist from the
chromium plating tank. During the source test, the chromium
plating tank was operated under three different conditions:
(1) without a fume suppressant, (2) with a foam blanket, and
(3) with a "combination" fume suppressant consisting of a foam
blanket and a wetting agent. The foam blanket forms a layer of
foam approximately 2.5 cm (1.0 in.) thick over the plating
solution when the plating tank is charged. The foam blanket
reduces chromic acid mist by entrapping the mist in the foam
layer. The "combination" fume suppressant forms a layer of foam
2.5 cm (1.0 in.) thick over the surface of the plating solution
and lowers the surface tension of the plating solution from
70 dynes/cm (4.8 x 10~3 lbf/ft) to below 40 dynes/cm
(2.7 x 10"3 lbf/ft). Because the surface tension of the bath is
lower, the gases escape with less of a "bursting" effect at the
C-31
-------
surface and, thus, less mist is formed. The foam layer captures
any mist that is formed.
The foam blanket and the "combination" fume suppressant used
in the plating tank during the source test were Zero-Mist™ HT and
Zero-Mist™ HT-2, respectively. Both of these fume suppressants
are manufactured and sold by OMI/Udylite® International
Corporation in Warren, Michigan. These fume suppressants were
selected for use during the source test because they are
representative of the types and brands of fume suppressants
widely used in the decorative chromium electroplating industry.
C.I.2.2.3 Process conditions during testing. Nine test
runs were conducted to characterize uncontrolled emissions from a
decorative chromium plating tank and to evaluate the performance
of fume suppressants in controlling chromic acid mist. Three
test runs were performed under each of the following conditions:
(l) no chemical fume suppressant in the plating bath
(uncontrolled); (2) a foam blanket, Zero-Mist™ HT, maintained in
the plating bath; and (3) a "combination" fume suppressant, Zero-
Mist™ HT-2, maintained in the plating bath. The test port wass
located in the main duct prior to the entrance of the duct from
the rework plating tank.
The process was maintained within normal operating limits
during each test run. The operating voltage, operating current,
and plating solution temperature were monitored and recorded
during each test run. The number of racks processed and the type
of parts plated also were recorded during each test run. The
operating conditions (average values) for each emission test run
are presented in Table C-35. In addition, grab samples of the
plating solution were taken during each test run to determine the
chromic acid concentration. The chromic acid concentrations of
the grab samples are presented in Table C-36.
During the test, the initial addition (makeup) and
maintenance additions of the fume suppressants were made
according to vendor recommendations on the use of each fume
suppressant. The makeup addition of the foam blanket, Zero-Mist™
HT, was 910 g (2.0 Ib), and the makeup addition of the
C-32
-------
"combination" fume suppressant, Zero-Mist1* HT-2, was 1,800 g
(4.0 Ib). For both fume suppressants, visual observation of the
foam over the surface of the plating solution was used to
determine when a maintenance addition was required. A foam
blanket approximately 2.5 cm (1.0 in.) thick was maintained over
the entire surface of the bath. For the "combination" fume
suppressant, stalagmometer measurements to determine the surface
tension of the plating bath were used in conjunction with visual
observations to monitor depletion of the fume suppressant. A
surface tension measurement above 40 dynes/cm (2.7 x 10"3 lbf/ft)
was specified as an indication of the need for maintenance
additions of the fume suppressant. When signs of depletion were
evident, a maintenance addition of the fume suppressant was made
to the plating tank. The normal maintenance addition consisted
of between 90 and 100 g (0.2 and 0.3 Ib) for both types of fume
suppressants. Visual observations were made at 10 to 15 minute
intervals for each test run. Surface tension measurements were
performed on the plating solution composite samples at the end of
test run Nos. 1 through 9 and at the beginning of test run Nos. 7
through 9. The measured surface tension (average) and the makeup
and maintenance additions of fume suppressant for each test run
are presented in Table C-37.
All test runs were completed without a process interruption
except test run No. 2, which was interrupted for 4 minutes
because of downtime in the process line. All test runs were
stopped for 15 to 20 minutes to change test ports.
The total amount of current supplied to the tank during each
test run is calculated in terms of ampere-hours. A tabular
summary of the total current values is presented in Table C-38.
C.2 SUMMARY OF TEST DATA
The EPA-conducted and EPA-approved test data are summarized
in Tables C-39 through C-63. Metric/English conversions and test
series averages may not convert exactly because the data were
rounded independently. Test data collected at each plant are
presented in the following tables:
C-33
-------
Plant A: Tables C-39 and C-40
Plant B: Tables C-41 and C-42
Plant D: Tables C-43 and C-44
Plant E: Tables C-45, C-46, and C-47
Plant F: Tables C-48 and C-49
Plant G: Tables C-50, C-51, C-52, and C-53
Plant I: Tables C-54 and C-55
Plant K: Tables C-56 and C-57
Plant L: Tables C-58 and C-59
Plant M: Table C-60
Plant N: Tables C-61, C-62, and C-63
C.3 CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING FACILITIES
C.3.1 Plant 0--Engineering Analysis12
Plant 0 is Reliable Plating and Polishing Company in
Bridgeport, Connecticut. Reliable Plating and Polishing Compa.ny
is a small job shop engaged primarily in chromic acid anodizing
of aircraft and miscellaneous parts.
C.3.1.1 Process Description. The one chromic acid
anodizing tank at this facility is 3.5 m (11.5 ft) long, 0.61 m
(2.0 ft) wide, and 0.91 m (3.0 ft) deep and has a capacity of
approximately 1,893 L (500 gal) of anodizing solution. The
chromic acid anodizing process consists of the following steps:
alkaline cleaning, cold water rinse, nitric acid dip, cold water
rinse, anodizing, and nickel acetate sealing and/or hot water
sealing. The aluminum parts are frequently dyed after sealing.
The anodizing line is equipped with an automatic hoist to
transfer parts into and out of process tanks.
The anodizing solution contains chromic acid in a
concentration of approximately 60 to 75 g/L (8 to 10 oz/gal) of
water. The operating temperature ranges from 35° to 38°C (95° to
100°F) . The tank is equipped with a 4,000-A rectifier. The
voltage is applied stepwise until a level of 40 V is reached.
This level is applied for the remainder of the anodizing time.
The current typically ranges from 200 to 300 A, and the anodizing
time is 1 hr.
C-34
-------
C.3.1.2 Air Pollution Control. The anodizing tank is
equipped with a double-sided draft hood to capture the chromic
acid mist. The ventilation hood is ducted to a wet scrubber
manufactured by Niehaus Brothers, Inc. The scrubber is located
adjacent to the anodizing tank.
The Niehaus scrubber is a fume exhaust and separating unit
developed primarily for the electroplating and chemical
industries. The scrubbing action is achieved by a combination of
water adsorption and centrifugal separation. Figure C-21 is a
schematic of the Niehaus scrubber. Its operation is described by
Niehaus as follows:
. . . contaminated air is drawn in through the intake duct
into which sprays of water are introduced. These sprays,
upon impinging on the high speed blower wheel, are reduced
to fog which intimately mix with the contaminated air,
dissolving the contaminants. The blower wheel being axially
located within the separating chamber also acts as an
impeller of a centrifuge, thereby separating the water
entrained contaminants which are drained at the bottom of
the unit. The cleaned air spirals out the discharge located
at the top.13
The design gas flow rate is 85 m3/min (3,000 ft3/min). The
design water flow rate ranges from 7.6 to 11.4 L/min (2 to
3 gal/min). The scrubber water is not recycled and the scrubber
is continuously sprayed with fresh water.
C.3.1.3 Engineering Analysis. During April 1987, testing
was conducted on the scrubber at Plant 0 to estimate the amount
of uncontrolled emissions from the process. Plant 0 was selected
for testing because the scrubber water was not recycled so that a
grab sample analysis of the scrubber water would determine the
amount of chromium collected in the scrubber. A mass balance was
then performed on the scrubber to obtain an estimate for the
amount of uncontrolled chromium emissions.
C.3.1.3.1 Sampling procedures. The testing consisted of
obtaining composite samples representative of the scrubber
influent, scrubber effluent, and anodizing solution for each of
four 1-hour anodizing cycles. Each sample consisted of four grab
samples that were collected approximately 15, 30, 45, and
60 minutes into each anodizing cycle. The sampling locations are
C-35
-------
shown in Figure C-22 and are designated as letters A, B, and C.
The composite samples obtained during the tests were analyzed for
both hexavalent and total chromium.
The scrubber water flow rate also was measured periodically
by placing an 18.9-L (5-gal) container in the outlet stream and
recording the amount of time required to fill the container. The
temperature, operating voltage, and operating current of the
anodizing solution; the number and types of parts anodizing
during each anodizing cycle; and the outlet water flow rate of
the scrubber were recorded during each test run. The average
values of the monitored parameters are given in Table C-64.
C.3.1.3.2 Results of mass balance. The results of the
sample analyses were used to perform a chromium mass balance
around the scrubber to estimate uncontrolled chromium emissions.
The analytical results for each composite sample are presented in
Table C-65. The analytical results show that all of the chromium
in the outlet scrubber water was in the hexavalent state.
The following equation was used to solve for the
uncontrolled chromiuir. mass emission rate:
M = [(Qw)(CW)]/E
where:
M = uncontrolled chromium mass emission rate, kg/hr
(Ib/hr);
Qw = outlet water flow rate of scrubber, L/hr (gal/hr);
Cw = chromium concentration of outlet water stream, kg/L
(Ib/gal); and
E = efficiency cf the scrubber, 90 percent.
The uncontrolled chromium emission rate was calculated using
a scrubber efficiency cf 90 percent. Previous source tests at
chromium electroplating facilities showed that the efficiency of
packed-bed scrubbers ranged from 93 to 99 percent. The vendor of
the Niehaus fume scrubber states that it can achieve an
efficiency of 95 to 99 percent. However, the conservative
estimate of 90 percent efficiency was used in these analyses
because it is expected that the fume scrubber is less efficient
than a packed-bed scrubber.
C-36
-------
The estimated uncontrolled chromium emission results and
workload descriptions for each test run are presented in
Table C-66. The uncontrolled chromium emission rate ranged from
1.5 x 10'4 kg/hr (3.3 x 10"4 Ib/hr) to 2.5 x 10'3 kg/hr
(5.5 x 10~3 Ib/hr). The variation in the estimated uncontrolled
emission rates is directly related to the total surface area and
configuration of the parts anodized during each test run. The
same type of aircraft parts was anodized during run Nos. 2 and 3
with 22 parts anodized during run No. 2 and 16 parts anodized
during run No. 3. The workload decreased 27 percent from run
No. 2 to run No. 3 with a subsequent decrease of 61 percent in
the uncontrolled emission rate. The types of parts anodized
during both run Nos. 1 and 4 were similar and consisted of racks
of small aircraft and electronic parts with 14 racks of parts
anodized during run No. 1 and 17 racks of parts anodized during
run No. 4. The workload increased 18 percent from run No. 1 to
run No. 4 with a subsequent increase of 24 percent in the
uncontrolled chromium emission rate.
The average uncontrolled emission rate for run Nos. 2 and 3
is 2.7 x 10"4 kg/hr (5.9 x 10"4 Ib/hr), and the average
uncontrolled emission rate for run Nos. 1 and 4 is
2.2 x 10~3 kg/hr (4.9 x 10 ~3 Ib/hr). The average of run Nos. 2
and 3 is only 12 percent of the average of run Nos. 1 and 4,
which suggests that both total surface area and configuration of
parts substantially affect the amount of uncontrolled chromium
emissions.
The average uncontrolled chromium emission rate for all runs
was 1.2 x 10~3 kg/hr (2.6 x 10~3 Ib/hr). Even though the data
show a wide range of uncontrolled emission rates due to the
different workloads during each run, it is reasonable to average
the estimated emissions because workload variations are common in
the industry.
C-37
-------
JJ
CD
3
T)
C
o
.Q
CO
c
(1)
0)
J-l
o
(IS
u
c
•H
•H
en
C
(U
•o
m
^
0)
o
u
•H
JJ
Q)
U
•
H
i
u
Q)
-H
C-38
-------
3 si
C3
JJ
w
'I-
CM
•
O
t/>
•H -H
e M
o o
CJ U
•O J3
4J 0)
-U
fc 4J
o o
U-l rH
(u x:
4J U
0)
>1 «
m CD
>-i
^i
C tr>
o c
u w
T) T3
C 0)
nj 4J
nJ
(U T3
>-i -H
3 rH;
4J O
a m
(C C
U O
&14-)
m CQ
-H 0)
Q iJ
CD
O 4J
OJ Cn
^ C
3-H
&14J
•H (C
fc <-\
04
C-39
-------
o u.
z ee.
UJ i—
o «e
I
u
0)
c
•H
X!
U
0)
iH
a
OJ
rt
•o
0)
iJ
CQ
Q)
JJ
&S
Cri
C
-rl
4J
u
o.
E
CO
CQ
I
U
fi
(0
O
-H
4J
0)
X!
u
CO
n
I
u
0)
i-l
3
O)
•H
PL,
C-40
-------
S
«
o
«/»
o
o
o
5
o
I
a
•-« «
X. u
UJ 1>O
di
!"£
o •-•
p" t/»
I- UT.
t_ 1-4
QjC X
Uluj ^
f-«J
o< a
rj^ uj
oo-J
s:s
OQ>-
»-«o z
tn.j o
f)u. <->
•-»
»:_
UJ O
\n
ui
tj
V)
UJ
o
U. I
u. I
° I
A
o
u
a.
§ Y:
.t-Jli
(M
a
<
^
2
o
t/t
HZI
L±J
(9 <
ZOUJ
3 ..
_i ui a i/i
=» x z *-•
o
o
oc
00
ae
a uj
UJCD
I- GO
0=3
=>«
O (_>
I/)
V)
Z UI
°s
•_< 5
I/I U.
iO
«-• 3;
zo
UJ *£
^J
(0
C
•H
rH
O
^1
m
u
J-l
o
0)
0}
u
c
en
o
rH
o
a
.c
o
o
Pi
14-1
o
(1)
•H
>
a
cu
u
0)
I
-H
fc
C-41
-------
Ri
§
1
58
51
£|
!^
§*
52
*2
. ^&'
*$^
5PI
\ ,'
—L«U
- »\m. ^ —*J
-j=L
r
K
~i »^
v*
u
1
V-J-J
O
si
g
g
to
>^
u ?
<3
"«-
&
U
CL
m
m
re
u
0) 71
o 3
t o
O
8
u
"
QJ
U
CD
" J
U '
o;
•^
dT
•r-
&.
C-42
-------
MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATION SECTION
54'0
DOUBLE BAFFLE SECTION
Figure C-6.
Cross section of mist eliminator at Roll Technology,
Greenville, South Carolina.
C-43
-------
OVERLAPPING
BLADES SERVE AS
CATCHMENTS
MIST-LADEN
GAS STREAM
CONTROLLED
GAS STREAM
DROPLETS TO COLLECTION SUMP
Figure C-7. Overlapping-type blade design for
chevron-blade mist eliminators.
C-44
-------
•- ~
0) <
r- c^
Y M
JJ (0
w c
w
73
Q
U
vo
^
I
rt
d
-H
iH
O
M
rt
u
4J
O
CO
0)
-H
g
0)
0)
v^
a
tn
o
rH
O
a
£3
u
a)
rH
rH
O
CD
(U
JJ
•H
m
Q)
•H
I
rt
CD
4-i
o
o
•H
4J
rt
u
O
00
Q)
Cn
•H
C-45
-------
i! I
!Sfj$
inh!
0)
c
-rl
A
u
o
•H
03
-H •
O (ti
Q) -H
M CH
CU -H
Cn
4-1 ^
fO "^
i!l
jj en
0) 0)
m'
o o
,V4 -U
jj tn
a c
O-H
u &
ij
T3 5-1
a o
fC S
a -
v- •
H' O
4.' C
CUM
rei
u -
u
14-1 -H
O rH
a> 5-4
-rl T3
^
a)
T) -a
•rl C!
a) rt
cu
C-46
-------
•o
c
(t
OJ
c
•H
A
U
o
•H
CD
•H
O
0)
M
P4
JJ
•o 21
rt.H
CO
0)
g
u u
% c
5"
•H
> U
rt^
§2
•H .2
(U
m
i
CO
CO
o
i-l
u
u
Q)
C-47
-------
o
&
» r*
111 a
e £
2 o
' o
o o
(C
•H
e
s
CO
e
c
0)
S-l
o
o
en
jj
CQ
-H
•H
O
0)
1
ri
.c
u
•d
n
rt
a
m
o
o
I
U
0)
Cri
-H
C-48
-------
0)
JJ
tn
-H
-H
U
0)
a
w
1
^
J3
u
•a
(d
a
o
o
o
•H
-H
U
0)
v^
Oi
•H
C-49
-------
C-50
-------
o
Z 0£
LU 1—1
C9 <
1 . I Q£
CO LU
uj i as
_l _J O CQ
_| O LU 5
< z a^ oc
ft
3
o
O
o
u_
I
ro
CNJ
CO
a
o
o
•H
1-4
JJ
m
3
XJ
C
O
0)
-H
4J
(ti
-o
0)
4J
CO
O
-H
rt
rd
C
•H
0)
fti
CO
K-l
O
u
•H
4J
QJ
X!
O
w
H
i
0)
Cn
-H
C-51
-------
STACK
KCH
SCRUBBER
FAN
ROOF
TANK
3
RECIRCULATION
TANK
TANK
2
TANK
1
LEGEND
AIRFLOW
HATER FLOW
Figure C-15. Schematic of hard chromium plating operation tested
at Steel Heddle Company, Greenville, South Carolina.
C-52
-------
•o
o
o
(0
0
T3
'w
D
O
c
CO
+-•
D)
a
b
M-'
x
b
co
x
b
•
o
CO
CO
ns
X
-------
I
I'D
1 0
i O
1 J=
1 lo
! oS
1 5
)
i "n
1 *•*
Q)
1 -o
1 '5
1 I
1 fl)
t \v
ill
, 3
1 0
ITJ
1
J£
C
(0
+-•
O)
_c
^•f
JO
a
b
Tf
X
to
CO
X
q
6
CO
0
•o ^
Ss
o> -a -9
.E a 2
w -* o
S °
a
CO
8
a;
EH
c"
o
ij
m
3
o
u
a
H
o
•H
tt •
2 m
fc c
o
a.! -H
(t -U
nS
E u
a -H
4-1 M-4
CC' -H
CC! O
OJ
C
o
C.I
•a
c:
n!
Q)
i-l
-I
4-1
Ci<
n!
L)
c
CO
i
C.)
a)
C-54
-------
3 ••*/)•
O O UJ <
—I Z H- I
x
t s
13
2
t i I
ce o
' r~
r
§
•a
c
CM
a:
o
O
a.
o
u
rH
0)
Q
-H
Cn
OJ °
*s
(1) •
si
>
(C
tfl
u
U g
^
•H «
4J
03
0)
c
a)
O
®
10
w 03
U'b!
•H !L
0)
U
Cfl
CD
4-)
U
O
,'ft
03
H
i
U
0)
Cn
-H
C-55
-------
0
X
•
5
a
ii
••
—
5
s
7
i
i
-«»
w i. < >
A«rtrN?ri)!QM*ft
L
oe «a 3 >•
02 Pa:
3 at (j»-
uj o 3 z
as (/» o w
•ft S
tno
CTi
c
•H
JJ
m
u
0)
-H
Q
-H
o
4J
3 t
4J C
fC (U
CJ-H1
f^1 _C*
f. U
o-i (U
R! ^
r-l O
cux:
4.) •
nj U
«H -H
O U
0)
;s a
w to
-H
:>
CU
cr*
H
I
CJ
3
17)
•iH
lit
C-56
-------
CN
C£
CD
03
Of.
C£ Z
O O
Q- t-r
H-SK
l/> O
LU O
X
Z
\
a: -
<- — <•---! O
-------
Intake
Fumes
Water Inlet
Exhaust
Washed
Air
Intake Stack
Spray Chamber
Separating
Chamber
Blower
Drain
Outlet
Figures C-21. Diagram of centrifugal-flow scrubber at Reliable
Plating and Polishing Company, Bridgeport, Connecticut.
C-58
-------
UJ
g
l/l
o
on
o
UJ
ce
(—
in
Of
t~4
*£
«--- 5-
t—
GO
o:
UJ
t—
_
»- uj
en j
Qi M
^— «
<
1
4-'
> i
r
1
i
r
r
r
o
C3
2
—i Z
0 <
o t—
Z
•a:
r
i
A*
/
^
\
o
•— 1—
H— K- UJ Z
< UJ _J O
0 -J 1— —
0 ZZDt-
^ "°|
Q_ UJ UJ
X oe oe ca
OO (^> (/> i_i
fNI
UJ < 00 0
OJ
rt
0)
X)
X)
O
CD
CO
-H
2
T)
U
-H
JJ
CJ
0)
U
-a
^m
•s!
"-o«
•" S
2 ft
(o g^
U
Q)
QJ
U
CO
(tS
•H
H
0)
CN
C\
i
U
0)
M
Cn
-H
C-59
-------
TABLE C-l. AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS RECORDED DURING MASS
EMISSIONS TESTS ON TANK 6 AT GREENSBORO INDUSTRIAL PLATERS,
GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
Test run No.
1
2
3
4
Operating
voltage, volts
9.3
8.1
10.0
8.7
Operating
current ,
amperes
5,960
5,560
7,930
5,440
Temp , of
plating
solution,
°C (°F)
49 (120)
46 (114)
50 (122)
62 (143)
TABLE C-2. TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED TO TANK 6 DURING MASS
EMISSIONS TESTS AT GREENSBORO INDUSTRIAL PLATERS, GREENSBORO,
NORTH CAROLINA
Total current, ampere-hours
Test run No. Inlet test Outlet test
1 11,800 13,200
2 10,400 11,000
3 15,900 16,900
4 10,600 11,200
C-60
-------
TABLE C-3. CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING BATH
AND MIST ELIMINATOR WASHDOWN SAMPLES AT GREENSBORO
INDUSTRIAL PLATERS, GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
CrO-j concentration,
Grab sample g/L (oz/gal)
Test Run No. I
Plating solution 261 (34.8)
Mist eliminator washdown water 148 (19.8)
Test Run No. 2
Plating solution 258 (34.5)
Mist eliminator washdown water 77.1 (10.3)
Test Run No. 3
Plating solution 247 (33.0)
Mist eliminator washdown water 120 (16.0)
Test Run No. 4
Plating solution 251 (33.5)
Mist eliminator washdown water 42.7 (5.7)
C-61
-------
TABLE C-4. AVERAGE OPERATING CONDITIONS RECORDED DURING MASS
EMISSIONS TESTS AT CONSOLIDATED ENGRAVERS CORPORATION,
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Temp. of
Operating Operating plating
Test run No. Tank Work-station voltage, current, solution,
Inlet/Outlet No. No. volts amperes °C (°F)
1-1/0-1
1-2/0-2
1-3/0-3
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1 and 2
1
2
1 and 2
l
2
1 and 2
15
13
10
15
13
9
112
11
9
.5
.0
.0
.5
.0
.8
.6
.4
.8
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
,600
,250
,050
,460
,270
,210
,265
,250
,170
68
68
55
62
62
58
67
67
55
(155)
(155)
(132)
(144)
(144)
(136)
(152)
(152)
(132)
TABLE C-5. TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED TO THE PLATING TANKS DURING
EACH EMISSIONS TEST RUN AT CONSOLIDATED ENGRAVERS CORPORATION,
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Total current, ampere-hours
rest run JNO.
Inlet/outlet
1-1/0-1
1-2/0-2
1-3/0-3
Tank No.
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
WU1K-
station No.
1
2
1 and 2
1
2
1 and 2
1
2
1 and 2
Inlet
4,830
3,720
6.470
15,000
3,950
3,550
6.580 .
14,100
3,790
3,730
6.590
14,100
Outlet
4,840
3,730
6.510
15,100
4,020
3,560
6.580
14,200
3,780
3,720
6.590
14,100
C-62
-------
TABLE C-6. CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING BATH AND
MIST ELIMINATOR WASHDOWN SAMPLES AT CONSOLIDATED ENGRAVERS
CORPORATION, CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Cr03 concentration,
Run No./Sample g/L (oz/gal)
Run No. 1
Plating Tank 1 227 (30.4)
Plating Tank 2 246 (33.0)
Washdown water 207 (27.7)
Run No. 2
Plating Tank 1 246 (33.0)
Plating Tank 2 259 (34.7)
Washdown water 112 (15.0)
Run No. 3
Plating Tank 1 234 (31.4)
Plating Tank 2 238 (31.9)
Washdown water 105 (14.1)
C-63
-------
TABLE C-7. AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR MASS EMISSIONS
TESTS AT ABLE MACHINE COMPANY, TAYLORS, SOUTH CAROLINA
Test run No.
1
2
3
Operating
voltage, volts
7.5
7.1
7.5
Operating
current ,
amperes
8,580
9,530
7,050
Temp . of
plating
solution,
°C (°F)
52 (125)
52 (125)
52 (126)
TABLE C-8. TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED TO THE TANK DURING MASS
EMISSIONS TESTS AT ABLE MACHINE COMPANY,
TAYLORS, SOUTH CAROLINA
Total current, ampere-hours
Test run No. Inlet test Outlet test
1 25,800 25,500
2 18,800 19,400
3 14,200 14,800
C-64
-------
TABLE C-10. AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS DURING EACH MASS
EMISSIONS TEST RUN AT ROLL TECHNOLOGY,
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA
Operating
Run No. current, amperes
1 4,
2 5,
3 5,
500
200
200
Operating
voltage, volts
6.
7.
7.
8
0
3
Temperature of
plating solution,
°C (°F)
54
54
54
(130)
(130)
(130)
TABLE C-ll. TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED TO TANK 6 DURING EACH MASS
EMISSIONS TEST RUN AT ROLL TECHNOLOGY,
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA
Run No.
l
2
3
Test time, hours
3.2
2.0
2.0
Total current,
ampere-hours
15,400
10,400
10,400
TABLE C-12. CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING SOLUTION
AND WASHDOWN SAMPLES AT ROLL TECHNOLOGY,
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA
Cr07 concentration
Grab sample g/L oz/gal
Plating solution
Run IA-1 280 37.4
Run IA-2 222 29.6
Run IA-3 229 30.6
Moisture extractor washdown water
8/10/88 5.84 0.78
8/11/88 12.6 1.68
Mist eliminator washdown water
8/10/88 0.90 0.12
8/11/88 1.20 0.16
C-66
-------
TABLE C-9. CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING SOLUTION AND
MIST ELIMINATOR WASHDOWN SAMPLES AT ABLE MACHINE COMPANY,
TAYLORS, SOUTH CAROLINA
Grab sample
CrOj concentration, g/L
(oz/gal)
Test Run No. 1
Plating solution
Mist eliminator washdown water
Test Run No. 2
Plating solution
Mist eliminator washdown watera
152 (20.3)
5.3 (0.71)
156 (20.8)
Test Run No. 3
Plating solution
Mist eliminator washdown water
159 (21.2)
6.6 (0.88)
aMist eliminator was not washed down after test run No. 2.
C-65
-------
TABLE C-13. AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS DURING MASS EMISSIONS
TESTS AT PRECISION MACHINE AND HYDRAULIC,
WORTHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA
Operating Surface area
Operating Operating temperature, plated,
Run No. Rectifier No. voltage, volts current, amperes °C (°F) m2 (ft2)
I I 4~62,800 56 (133) 1.4(15.2)
2 5.4 3,700
2 1 4.7 2,000 56(133) 1.3(13.9)
2 4.9 3,000
3 1 4.7 1,500 56(133) 1.3(13.4)
2 4.9 3,700
4 1 4.7 1,200 55(131) 1.1(12.3)
2 5.0 3,600
5 1 4.9 1,300 56(133) 1.1(11.7)
2 4.7 3,600
C-67
-------
TABLE C-14. TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED TO PLATING TANK DURING MASS
EMISSIONS TEST AT PRECISION MACHINE AND HYDRAULIC,
WORTHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA
Run No.
1
Totala
2
Total3
3
Totala
4
Total3
5
Total3
Rectifier No.
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Total current
Inlet
9,240
11.830
21,100
3,900
6.100
10,000
3,000
7.400
10,400
2,490
7,130
9,600
2,600
7.090
9,700
ampere-hours
Outlet
9,240
11.830
21,100
3,900
6.100
10,000
3,000
7.400
10,400
2,490
7.130
9,600
2,600
7.090
9,700
3Numbers are rounded to nearest 100.
TABLE C-15. CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING
SOLUTION SAMPLES AT PRECISION MACHINE AND HYDRAULIC,
WORTHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA
Run No.
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
CrO,
g/L
187
195
197
201
196
concentration
oz/gal
24.9
26.1
26.3
26.9
26.2
C-68
-------
TABLE C-16. AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS DURING EACH MASS
EMISSIONS TEST RUN AT HARD CHROME SPECIALISTS,
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
Operating
Run No. current, amperes
1 3
2 3
3 5
4 3
5 3
,000
,000
,400
,000
,000
Operating
voltage, volts
4
4
5
5
5
.6
.7
.0
.0
.0
Temperature of
plating solution,
°C (°F)
54
55
55
56
56
(130)
(131)
(131)
(132)
(132)
TABLE C-17. TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED TO PLATING TANK DURING EACH
MASS EMISSIONS TEST RUN AT HARD CHROME SPECIALISTS,
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
Test time, Total current,
Run No. hours ampere-hours
1 3.2 9,600
2 2.0 6,000
3 2.0 10,800
4 3.2 9,600
5 2.0 6,000
C-69
-------
TABLE C-18. CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING BATH AND
MIST ELIMINATOR WASHDOWN WATER GRAB SAMPLES AT
HARD CHROME SPECIALISTS, INC., YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
^ concentration
Run No./Sample date g/L bz/gal
Plating solution
1-1 205 27.4
1-2 215 28.7
1-3 215 28.7
1-4 208 27.8
1-5 205 27.4
Mist eliminator washdown water
01/30/89 93.0 12.4
01/31/89 ' 60.1 8.0
02/01/89 29.8 4.0
C-70
-------
C-71
-------
CO
CO
w
EH
CO
O
H <
co 53
CO H
H J
js o
Wr )
\^
g|
H
D H
Q ^
Q H
W >
SCO
w
0 EH
U fl!
W EH
CtJ CO
CO -
04 O
W S5
EH H
W EH
1 ^
g J
^
CD H
EH CO
gg
w z
CU H
O
w z,
o o
W W
^ tH
i^C Qj
H
u
w
J
§
I
XI
2 ~
<<- *
o 9
f-i
(5
S 3
3
£
o«
Ml
£
"o U
V °
1 B
f-i
§•"0
E S
V
H
«
«> &
^ §
o
U)
fl
S** m?
O
"I
1
6
Z
e
1
H
\^i \^< \^< Vs* O< VN
r» ts r) V) *r> \r> \n v>
VI VI V>
O O O O O O
si si $ i
i- o r- o oo o
^O ^D ^1 ^D ^l ^D
SI II SS
— * — " — '
ts vo f> r~ n —
^ * ^ * "* r-
gi 2 S £ R 2
«
fsts n«s ts«s rsr* ts«s ui >nvi >rtvi viv> viv} «r>v>
OO OO OO OO OO OO OO
£ i si *i si *i si &i
oo ^P &\ ^2 ^^ ^? r*1" CD ^^ ^^ ^\ ^5 oo ^2
^l '^D Vl ^D ^f} \G ^^ ^D ^O ^D 'O ^D ^O ^D
\Q t** O ^ C^l 00 O f^l V^ 9\ w 00 O f**
— r ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ f^
r*-^c r*oo r*-o OO cs^— o^ O^v
ON»^ O\W^ ^v^O OsvC OOr-* OO^O OO^O
it ii it it ii ii it
r*"} O f^ O CO O c^i O f^i O C^ O c*1! O
<* V, vo ^ 00 Ov 2
»- — O O
n r» vc *r> vo
§1 II
rf rT
IT I Vi V) vf)
00 VO • 00 Vf ;
II II
fl O f^ C3
rs ^^ cs <--
- 2
C-73
-------
TABLE C-20. AVERAGE SCRUBBER WATER CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS
DURING MASS EMISSIONS TESTS AT PIEDMONT INDUSTRIAL PLATING,
STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Target
Test run concentration,
No. g/L (oz/gal)
1 0.0
2 0.0
3 0.0
4 30.0 (4.0)
5 30.0 (4.0)
6 30.0 (4.0)
7 60.0 (8.0)
8 60.0 (8.0)
9 60.0 (8.0)
10 120.0 (16.0)
11 120.0 (16.0)
12 120.0 (16.0)
Actual
concentration,
g/L (oz/gal)
1.38 (0.185)
1.73 (0.231)
1.75 (0.234)
25.24 (3.37)
25.54 (3.41)
24.64 (3.29)
50.56 (6.75)
45.24 (6.04)
41.94 (5.60)
78.94 (10.54)a
115.19 (15.38)
105.68 (14.11)
aAbout 5 minutes before the end of this test run, plating
personnel inadvertently drained the scrubber water into the
23-foot plating tank to replace plating solution evaporation
losses.
C-72
-------
TABLE C-22. TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED TO THE TANKS
DURING MASS EMISSIONS TESTS AT PIEDMONT INDUSTRIAL PLATING,
STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Ampere-hours
Test run No. Tank
1 23-ft
10-ft
Total
2 23-ft
10-ft
Total
3 23-ft
10-ft
Total
4 23-ft
10-ft
Total
5 23-ft
10-ft
Total
6 23-ft
10-ft
Total
7 23-ft
10-ft
Total
8 23-ft
10-ft
Total
9 23-ft
10-ft
Total
10 23-ft
10-ft
Total
11 23-ft
10-ft
Total
12 23-ft
10-ft
Total
Inlet test
6,210
6.010
12,200
6,490
6.730
13,200
6,520
6.480
13,000
7,040
1.470
8,510
7,150
2.250
9,400
7,310
8^440
4,000
2.470
6,470
3,330
3,110
6,440
4,000
1.470
5,470
3,900
2.440
6,340
4,000
2.230
6,230
3,830
2.830
6,660
Outlet test:
6,210
6.010
12,200
6,490
6.730
13,200
6,550
6.500
13,100
7,120
1.490
8,610
7,260
2.310
9,570
7,370
1.120
8,490
4,000
2.490
6,490
3,330
3.040
6,370
4,030
1.450
5,480
3,860
2,440
6,300
4,030
2.250
6,280
3,830
2.850
6,680
C-74
-------
TABLE C-23. CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING SOLUTION
DURING MASS EMISSIONS TESTS AT PIEDMONT INDUSTRIAL PLATING,
STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.
Chromic acid concentration of
solution, g/L (oz/gal)
Test run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10a
11
12
Date (1986)
08/19
08/19
08/19
08/20
08/20
08/20
08/21
08/21
08/21
08/22
08/22
08/22
10- ft tank
227
225
224
229
231
238
230
224
201
220
229
229
(30
(30
(29
(30
(30
(31
(30
(29
(26
(29
(30
(30
.3)
.1)
.9)
.6)
.9)
.8)
.7)
.9)
.8)
.3)
.6)
.6)
23 -ft tank
226
229
232
227
231
228
229
227
226
212
214
216
(30
(30
(30
(30
(30
(30
(30
(30
(30
(28
(28
(28
.2)
.5)
.9)
.3)
.9)
.5)
.5)
.4)
.2)
.3)
.5)
.8)
aAbout 5 minutes before the end of this test run, plating
personnel inadvertently drained the scrubber water into the
23-foot plating tank to replace plating solution evaporation
losses.
C-75
-------
o
H<
E-J £
«rT
jfh
3?*
*t .
C ctj
CO U
^~ CS
2?
2."*
C8 ^
•g ^
H
^
^^^
E
^
•>
— r
o
1
•3
1
E-
d
M
§
H
O* vo"
*^
2 S
r"S X™ S
r- vo
"*. "1
pn — '<
f f
s^ C-
0 O
m os
cs" — "
0 0
rn pn
o" oo"
pn -^
irT p"
cs O
ON ON
0 C>
». •»
ON V>
d c>
oo" p"
pn pn
— ts
•s
0
pn
o?
^
r-
^4
N
o
— "
p
pn
irT
cs
oo"
ON
oo"
d
^^
ri
.4.
i
3
TO
>
C
1
u
a.
o
|
1
'i
s
C-76
-------
TABLE C-25. AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS RECORDED DURING MASS
EMISSIONS TESTS AT STEEL HEDDLE COMPANY,
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA
Temperature of
Test run Tank Operating voltage, Operating current, plating solution,
No. No. volts amperes "C (°F)
1 1 5.7 2,230 52(125)
2 6.0 1,360 52(125)
4 6.3 860 43(110)
1 5.3 400 52 (125)
2 5.8 1,200 52(125)
4 6.8 610 43(110)
1 6.0 1,520 52(125)
2 6.2 1,500 52 (125)
4 .. 7.0 650 43(110)
C-77
-------
TABLE C-26. TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED TO TANKS 1, 2, AND 4
DURING MASS EMISSIONS TESTS AT STEEL MEDDLE COMPANY,
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA
Test run No.
Tank No,
Total current, ampere-hours
Inlet test
Outlet test
l
2
4
TOTAL
5,410
3,410
2.580
11,400
5,400
3,390
2.580
11,400
1
2
4
TOTAL
1,010
3,440
1.820
6,270
980
3,430
1.820
6,230
3,200
3,550
1.960
8,710
3,160
3,490
1.960
8,610
C-78
-------
TABLE C-27. CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING SOLUTION
AND SCRUBBER WATER DURING MASS EMISSIONS TESTS AT
STEEL HEDDLE COMPANY, GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA
Test run No. Date (1986)
1 6/24
6/24
6/24
6/24
2 6/25
6/25
6/25
6/25
3 6/25
6/25
6/25
6/25
Sample location
Tank 1
Tank 2
Tank 4
Scrubber
Tank 1
Tank 2
Tank 4
Scrubber
Tank 1
Tank 2
Tank 4
Scrubber
Fraction
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
CrO3
concentration,
g/L (oz/gal)
187 (25.0)
184 (24.6)
159 (21.2)
0.013 (0.002)
171 (22.8)
187 (25.0)
151 (20.2)
0.010 (0.001)
174 (23.2)
191 (25.5)
157(21.0)
0.014 (0.002)
C-79
-------
TABLE C-28. AVERAGE SCRUBBER OPERATING PARAMETERS MONITORED
DURING EACH MASS EMISSIONS TEST RUN AT FUSION, INC.,
HOUSTON, TEXAS
Test run
No.
Frequency of water
replacement,
No. of times per run
Amount of makeup
water added,
Lfeal)
Pressure drop,
kPa (in. w.c.)
No washdown
1
2
3
Periodic washdown
4
5
6
Continuous washdown
7
8
6
4
4
4
5
4
c
c
a
a
a
260 (70)b
380 (100)b
260 (70)b
l,590(420)d
980 (260)d
0.45(1.8)
0.45 (1.8)
0.45 (1.8)
0.55 (2.2)
0.55 (2.2)
0.55 (2.2)
0.55 (2.2)
0.55 (2.2)
aMakeup water was supplied by a garden hose and, therefore, the amount of water added was rot
measured.
^Makeup water was added through a flow meter. The quantities of water provided are based on the
amount of time required to fill the sump and the flow rate measured through the flow meter.
cFresh water was added continuously at a rate of 2 gal/min.
dBased on the total amount of time to collect a complete emission sample and a continuous fresh
water flow rate of 2 gal/min.
C-80
-------
TABLE C-29. CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS
OF PLATING SOLUTION AND SCRUBBER WATER SAMPLES AT
FUSION, INC., HOUSTON, TEXAS
concentration in CrO, concentration in
plating solution scrubber water samples,
Run No. _ samples, g/L (oz/gal) _ g/L (oz/gal)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
221
223
226
223
223
221
220
219
.0
.0
.1
.0
.6
.8
.0
.4
(29
(29
(30
(29
(29
(29
(29
(29
.5)
.8)
.2)
.8)
.9)
.6)
.4)
.3)
0
0
0
3
5
0
0
0
.028
.027
.177
.837
.210
.056
.230
.124
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
.004)
.004)
.024)
.512)
.696)
.008)
.031)
.017)
AVG 222.2 (29.7) 1.211 (0.162)
C-81
-------
TABLE C-30. AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS MONITORED
DURING EACH MASS EMISSIONS TEST RUN AT
FUSION, INC., HOUSTON, TEXAS
Operating
Run No. voltage, volts
1 5
2 5
3 6
4 5
5 5
6 5
7 6
8 6
.5
.8
.0
.6
.6
.6
.6
.2
Operating
current/
amperesa
2,
3,
2,
3,
3,
3,
3,
2,
600
000
300
600
600
700
100
800
Operating
bath
temperature,
°C (°F)
53
53
53
53
53
53
52
53
(127)
(127)
(127)
(127)
(127)
(128)
(126)
(127)
aRounded to nearest 100.
TABLE C-31. TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED TO PLATING TANK DURING
EACH MASS EMISSIONS TEST RUN AT FUSION, INC., HOUSTON, TEXAS
Test run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Test time,
hours
2
2
2
2
2
2
3.2
2
Total current,
Inlet
5,500
6,000
4,600
7,200
7,200
7,400
10,000
5,600
ampere - hoursa
Outlet
5,400
6,000
4,600
7,100
7,200
7,400
10,000
5,600
aNumbers were rounded to the nearest 100.
C-82
-------
TABLE C-32. AVERAGE OPERATING CONDITIONS RECORDED DURING EACH
EMISSIONS TEST RUN AT DELCO PRODUCTS DIVISION,
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, LIVONIA, MICHIGAN
Test run
No.
1
2
3
Bath
temperature,
°C (°F)
54 (130)
54 (130)
55 (131)
No. of
cycles
138
139
120
Voltage,
volts
22.3
22.0
22.8
Current ,
amperes
20,510
21,700
21,750
No. of
bumpers
1,043
1,143
984
TABLE C-33. CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING BATH
SAMPLES AT DELCO PRODUCTS DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
LIVONIA, MICHIGAN
Run No./Sample
concentration,
g/L (oz/gal)
Run No. 1
Plating tank samples
Cell No. 1
Cell No. 2
Cell No. 3
Average
Run ..No. 2
Plating tank samples
Cell No. 1
Cell No. 2
Cell No. 3
Average
Run No. 3
Plating tank samples
Cell No. l
Cell No. 2
Cell No. 3
Average
288 (38.6)
307 (41.1)
294 (39.4)
296 (39.7)
292 (39.1)
296 (39.7)
307 (41.1)
298 (40.0)
303 (40.6)
303 (40.6)
307 (41.1)
304 (40.8)
C-83
-------
TABLE C-34. TOTAL CURRENT CONSUMED DURING EACH EMISSIONS TEST
RUN AT DELCO PRODUCTS DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
LIVONIA, MICHIGAN
Test run
No.
Total current,
ampere-hr
1
2
3
97,400
104,000
89,600
TABLE C-35. AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR EACH TEST RUN
AT AUTOMATIC DIE CASTING SPECIALTIES, INC.,
ST. CLAIR SHORES, MICHIGAN
Run
No.
1
2
3
Average
4
5
6
Average
7
8
9
Average
Bath
temperature,
°C (°F)
48
46
48
46
48
46
48
46
46
4?
4?
49
1118)
(118)
(118)
(118)
(118)
(118)
(118)
(118)
(119)
(120)
(120)
(120)
Operating
voltage,
volts
5.2
4.9
5.0
5.0
5.2
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5 . 1
5.1
Operating
current,
amperes
2,680
2,390
2.770
2,610
2,730
2,660
2,600
2,660
2,820
2,880
2.800
2,830
C-84
-------
TABLE C-36. CHROMIC ACID CONCENTRATIONS OF PLATING BATH
SAMPLES AT AUTOMATIC DIE CASTING SPECIALTIES, INC.,
ST. CLAIR SHORES, MICHIGAN
Cr03 concentration,
Run No. g/L (oz/gal)
1 267 (35.6)
2 273 (36.6)
3 275 (36.9)
4 250 (33.5)
6 257 (34.4)
7 286 (38.3)
8 273 (36.5)
9 286 (38.3)
C-85
-------
TABLE C-37. AVERAGE PLATING SOLUTION AND FUME SUPPRESSANT
PARAMETERS FOR EACH TEST RUN AT AUTOMATIC DIE CASTING
SPECIALTIES, INC., ST. CLAIR SHORES, MICHIGAN
Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Test
condition
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Foam blanket3
Foam blanket3
Foam blanket3
Foam blanket/
wetting agent"
Foam blanket/
wetting agent"
Foam blanket/
wetting agent"5
Surface
tension
dynes/cm
66
72
74
67
71
72
40
38
38
Fume suppressant additions
Makeup, g (lb)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
910 (2.0)
0(0)
0(0)
1,800 (4.0)
0(0)
0(0)
Maintenance, g (Ib)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
140 (0.3)
450(1.1)
450(1.0)
590(1.3)
200 (0.5)
3Zero Mist™ HT
bZero Mist™ HT-2
C-86
-------
TABLE C-38. TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED DURING EACH EMISSIONS TEST
RUN AT AUTOMATIC DIE CASTING SPECIALTIES, INC.,
ST. CLAIR SHORES, MICHIGAN
Test time,
Run No. hours
1 3.20
2 2.15
3 2.02
4 3.03
5 2.00
6 4.18
7 4.00
8 4.00
9 3.00
Total current,
ampere-hours
8,700
5,200
5,600
8,400
5,300
11,900
11,300
11,700
8,500
Ampere-
hours/hra
2,700
2,400
2,800
2,800
2,700
2,900
2,800
2,900
2,800
aTime-weighted average.
C-87
-------
c
rt
^
cn
•H
CD 4J
|rf r-l Cn (ti
E-l V G rH
Q O
rH OS r-l
EH CU rH 4J
co £^ o
til rH O 0) i->
FH fO S-4 rH (U
-H 4J Q) rH
M H ^ e 5
{S -U CU g -H
O CQ rH p
H P 0)-H r-l
CO *O gO
co c g o u
H H p r-i rd
m O g O -H
r-l 0 g
fi, O r-l T3 -H
O XJ X! r-l rH
CD O rt (U
"" ? Tl ^
2 0) r-i o m
5^ M (ij G "H
g O K O 2
P~?
CO
^
cr\
m
^*^ C** V^
0
so O oo O O
00 v> » *
c "> 2
S
^0 o ^/5 ^ Q
oo (s _• p 5
oo *""* Os *• ••
-- \r! "•
cn "
o
u
js •?
i, S
£ S
'° * E a
8 -2 * -
S S n
«^9 ^
r~ °? o
2, ^^ 2,
S r^ r-
o o o.
r- _,; cn
I1 I
Si5?
o o
*i ''i
r-" r-"
a 5
o\ r^ cn r^ oo cn
"• vd 2 °- 06 §
^^ f-* «M \o
^ ^ o ^ ^ o
O 00 ^^ O
-------
w
h5
4J
CJ1
d
-H
CD 4J
^ tn rt
<1) C H
•U -H ft
nj j-i O
CU r-l JJ
ft U OJ
rH O 0 0)
flj M rH rH
•H 4J 0) 4->
4J (U 6 O
CD rH 3
3 0) -H SH
•o go
C g 0 J->
H 3 >H (fl
•H .C C
O £ U -H
MO g
O rl "d -H
42 X! r< rH
CD u m d)
fi .*"!
<1) rO 4-J
M (0 C -H
o a o 2
0)
u ••
d o
O -n
.. CO 4->
C rt
•• O C 0
rtl -H O O
AJ -H rH
d rt CD 4J
(C 0) -rl CO
rH ft g CD
ft O W H
•8 J
4) O
II
it
1
m
.
^
c
oi
6
Z
c
d
c
I
1 1 1
1 1 t
g*8
§
VO 00 V)
00 fS gg
2 *" *
rn
°
.. I g s
00 ON
O
00 ON
o
00 .2
.S 13
"B « "fr •§
llll
o
S M
ON OO
s "§
^'^ t**
o» oo
If
p ri
ON 00
C
'6
.E e
u
8
«=
* 3 ""
^oo®
a ^s,
rn .
en oo •*
«n • oo
esf
d
«s 2 9 ^29
S-^S- 9-^ S-
>-' r» >«
«n o vo «r "*" S
rs r~ 3-
oo -«t ©
9 •* 9
2, ^ S-
00 O NO
OO _; >T)
9^-9
e^s.
tn oo vo
O ^ ^
^29
8-^2-
vo 00 O
5^5;
d
g,
t^
Sen O
. ^ 9
0^0
00
d
558
^^
00 00 NO
C-89
-------
rtj
EH
Q
r,
CO
W
EH
CO
S3
O
EMISS]
Cn
O
n>
e?
1
CO
H
^
U
w
J
9
S
"
0}
1
£H AJ
O
•H en
rt -H
^1 4J
o en m
r< -H Qj
O .U 0
u rt ^
rH OJ
03 04 U
n o a) -u
0) >H rH OJ
> AJ 0) rH
rt u a
M 0) E -H
CDrH 3
d OJ-H H
w E o
E o aj
0)-H X! C
- u E u -H
rt o E
TJ >H T3 -H
•H JC >H rH
rH U ft- (1)
0 XJ
m T3 -u
C r4 O 01
O rt i -H
U K £ S
0)
u ••
r< C
3 O
O-H
C ctf
•• O C 0
PQ -rl O O
AJ vH rH
1J (TJ 01
d SH CD 4J
rt a) -H m
rH &, E 0)
& O W EH
"o .g
o u
e. .
^
o u
> *-
o
B
0
B
3
pi
C5
C
3
pi
ee
O
' ' '' ° 9
> .
I—
oo oe 8 O O
r^ o ff O O
?: oc ^ O O
— "" ^ ^ 5
I — I!
w~.
u.
ll
c Jr 5
'E * 8. |
I c 1 J
c "2 iT "c
zz *- — ' fti
n|i
1 1 1 1 ll
c, "" ""
"— ' f) O ^
"^ «rt vrT O
f^ '^^ ^f^ ^.^
S2 g
m °- 0 & r?
r^ »s t~ o oo
«s •* vo
>« 4 —
~* ^" ^
^^ en o •*
f5 id id 2-
v\ ^ tn
— **5 o o en
oo fs r« ^ tn
**^ ^ o ^o
^" V^ V^ O
S--
Jn 5 ^
— — ^
'c
'§
i;
£
^-^
"s" •-
"B S
«n" "B
*• *i x-s
e If =
o <*•>-. C « C>
B * B 0
u u o .2 a -3
«"- 2^ ll&
•«|* || 1 §^
Ifljl ill
isg-tSa01 'B-S'M
;nh 11'
o u
p-: ^ .- ^ &
^ o t~ fp o
"^ g, £. ^^ o
SC^
l^j O • ^
oo ^ ^ 12 t
^ *^ ^ • ^1
• o r- J2 o
[^ • • VJ •
^2. 2-^2-
2 r; C| ^ tn
C*^ • f^. ^ •
O * fl
^1 !§!
cs s^s
SCO
06 F ? 2 -
en oo — cs oo
E! i S-I
1; ^"^ rT "^ r^
r4 * 2 m" 2
c4 • tn
S~* /— s
•? •?
$ *? «
1 2 I
o ^'g _a o ^
miii
M I5 s "i1 w> 1
- ac ^
C-90
-------
o o
I!
I1
'I
— . o O
so, «s >/•>
f)
^ ~
m" irT
4J QJ 4J e
rt u p §
^ 0) g O «
COrH 3
C 0) -H ^
w e o
g O 4J
T) 3 w m
n» .^ *-« |-^
IU "H AH C
iJ g U -H
fC 0 g
T3 5H -O-H
-H X: ^ rH
rH U (tJ QJ
O £
CD T3 U
C ^ O CD
O (ti > -H
u a f< s
<\)
u ..
^ c
3 O
0-H
1
;
o
Z
e
a
jt>
cc
•• CO 4J
C (ti
•• O C! 0
CQ -H O O
AJ -H rH
AJ (tf CD
C! SH CD 4J
It 0) -H CD
rH ft g tt)
ft O W EH
1
o
SSS S g 8
•* *" — ^ —
~ •* - Q
— ?5
S m- 8
. cs 9
s^s
2 9 jq
" d
«n «s t*
s-a
6
55 id
fn so ^± oo \o \o
Sr> Q o r>
r^ _
O O
9 -; 9
S^S,
o\ m o
oo r-- 10
6 ~?
2-
c
^ «
c -o
C-91
-------
a
rrt
TO
4J
CD
•H
rf 01 (C
W, en i
r . H* f~l
rf -H Qi
§ £S
r. rH JJ
rft Qj U
H 0 0) aJ
^ C 4-> 0) rH
g S^g-S
0 6 rH 3
pj O 0) -H iH
W ^ e n 2
2 H rH
IS C-> rt Q)
^ OTJ^ 4J
3 rH >-l (1) CO
S JD as a -H
| < K 0 S
r— '
CO
2 CD
•* o ..
U ^ g
[fl 0-H
W .. CD 4J
m am
9 •• o c o
2 Q -H 0 0
^ 4-> -H rH
.U nj m
d in en J-)
Hj CD -H OQ
rH CXg ». ^^ (S vo ' <•* ^^ * v^4 *^
o "" ^^oT S*-t^°^oT
t~«n oo_ \c ts oovo —
"" " vo" Ov \O* OS
oOfo§! *§1 ^§E
(r^ oo *n ^ *• * ^, '*~' -j ^, s— ' :
^o ™ ^^ ^ Sw' o • s— " o • N™^
f*1 ^ ON ON M CS ON *
_— ••. •« ^3 •> ^"^
0\ — O —
^^^
C
o
2-
.9 fi
E £
C^ "§ i J3
h ^"1 (^T 2 rT |
h-fl "§" ®S"®i3<
10 {^ 'S ^ /-\ 1 S ^ /^ 3
'!*f| o-i i |^-||^-
t|»-a «°«-*=° l|S|ili||
„ il i itijl iUHllfl
III! 11 illll limp^
01 O U
C-92
-------
CJ
w
J
d
(ti
JJ
c
-H
C -H
•H O,
4J O
m >-i
iH JJ
au oj
o cu cu
>1 M r-l rH
C 4-> 0) 4J
rt u 3
a cu E o
E rH d
O CU-H M
U SO
S O 4J
Q) 3 H 03
C-H X! C
-H E U -H
-CO E
U U T3-H
m x: ^ H
2 u m cu
X!
<1> T3 iJ
rH >-l CU CD
jg o3 c -H
< a o 2
0)
u ••
M a
3 o
o -H
•• CO 4J
d m
•• o d u
Q -H o o
4-> -H iH
4J fd CD
d ^ OQ 4J
oo m
r-
cs
vD
o
e.
«s
g
o
•* * c-»
1^ Q
9
-------
*
C
rrt
fO
±J
Cn
C
•H
JJ
ef CTI (C)
G CrH
> -H (^
3 ^o
|«l rf< V i 1 i
iD M 4J
r. rH 4J 0)
K DJ U rH
S -QVG
r u ^ H -H
^ C i-) Q)
rn H U >-l
S o g o
^H . fl , |
O* <~i *3 fi->
,_, >i o; -H u
S Cn g m
S 0 g 0 M
£2 rH 3 M 4J
C O -H X! X
§ ^§UQ)
r^ U ^ TJ <1J
S 0) X! ^ H
0 E-i U to 3
SH X! 4J
S rH t> CD
5 rH >H 0 -H
a o to c o
I OS B 0 2
g
CO
in 1J
^ r i ..
i VJ ••
M ^ C
*— ' ^ /^
!-J Ji
en
6
z
1
^ tS VO O
^2 •* \0 *
m >*~^ s"~"/
1 E
00 8 ^ 8 8 CT 2 0 0 1 ! I
1 a * « * 2^511
2 * w o m S S
So - 8 £- £
£R
oo o n-i o o ^ «^
SO
r~
gg § « £ fi {?S SB '• i i
"S^OO* ON-OOW")
o\ o\ - « ~~* cs oo ts
- "* 2 s es
>rt O
ON 00
/-s
£«
»
•o
^"i S"
N_^ O 1^
^ c *< £ L
»H cr^-s ^^§e
!*!! 'u E- I fsll
,-o-ss s* s a lil-rj
llsf Jtf«>! llfitl
, ill ifip *i!H
•a 7?92_ c£.^«?« 'a««^r«*2
| s 1 a g 3 ^ 1 -1 a x |3g>^^)S
c^agSo ««^y,? 8oSj<^«
§Qtw^o.r- at-Srt
«
M £- rb
« ° 8
i Tt
00 (S
rf vo
C1
j=
--- £
^ |
o fr
^ X-V S
mg/dscm (gr/dscf)
kg/hr (Ib/hr) (10'3
mg/ampere-hr (gr/
C-94
-------
g
g
EH
CO
H
r.
fcH
CO
§
m
Uj
CO
1
ft.
P4
o
>H
T3
Sj
g
CO
vo
_u
^^
a
j
rn
9
B
"
j^
a
rt
jj
rn
S5
-H
OJ
en rt
C rH
-rl ft
AJ 0
(T3 V-l
rH 4J
a u
• O i OJ-H (H
cn^ g o
0 § P tJ
__i ^t ij /rt
i~~ i p w ro
O-H J3 C
G g U-rj
X! 0 g
O M T3-H
QJ X! ^ rH
H U (« 0)
J3
rH T) -U
rH M 0, DQ
O (ti C -H
05 K 0 S
0)
O ••
r( C
P O
0-H
.. CD 4J
C rt
•• O C 0
W -H O O
1J -H rH
xJ rt on
C >H CD 4J
nj s
<
n
o
z
§
f£
^ * ^"
— Pi, o
. ^^ ^^
S, «•> 2-
vo •* r-
ft v>
Tj- 00
6
1 1 '"V ("—S *™S
' ' 00 V« CS
00 • -*
"". 2> 9
O m O
^^ ^ ' S^J
~ ^ t->
jr> o
^ oo
6
t t /— ^ /— N /-" v
II — • ^ C^l
V? 2
tr\ t-~
O
_^ x-s
5 ^
kg/hr (Ib/hr) (10'3)
kg/ampere-hr (gr/ampere-
Hexavalent chromium
mg/dscm (gr/dscf) (10~3)
kg/hr (Ib/hr) (10~3)
mg/ampere-hr (gr/ampere
C-95
-------
<
5
Q
EH
CO
W
EH
CO
S5
O
H
CO
CO
H
W
fc
O
r^
^
12
1
P
CO
£
I
U
U
pq
3
EH
C
rt
Cn
C
-H
CD nJ
•H tt
4J 0
rH JJ
ao .u
. o o 1 0) -H >H
tn go
0 g 0 U
rH P W (ti
O-H Si C
C g O-H
A 0 E
O M 73 -H
(1) ,C r( rH
EH 0 rt QJ
_f|
rH T) J->
rH M 0) CO
O ri C -H
« ffi o 2
CO
o ••
W C
P O
O-H
.. m AJ
rt n3
•• o a u
W-H O O
4J -H rH
jj nj ro
C rl CO iJ
rt d)-H m
rH fig <1)
0< O W EH
"S 8
I'i
c «
> 4J
< **
o
c
o£
«s
6
c
cS
^B-
t
o
Z
c
a
Q
^ ^ -^- ^
C """ 2 f~ VO vo"
00 (T) ^^ >^
o\ r-
OC r*i •— • ^5 ^5 '""x ^f ^^ ^^ t
oc°^g^ ^qo® '
C ^ » »• x*^' t^ f** O
^^ ^O ^2 ^ft ** *"
oc *^ f^i ^-^ N_^
5 ?
oc r~i r~- ^2 *"^ j^^ fi £^ ^^ I
occr^.; — o ^^^oo
O1 ' O* °^> * v"^ (S O> C4
5c ^f >o f— vo" \c*
f) s**/ **-^
r- oo
Os r-
^, ^
c
'1
o
*o
/•^s S™*'
11
en "g
u ^ & •-*
^ u '1 "°. ''o
jc i ^-. 8 «f -«
i (t) fi^ — t2 ••— '
c e ^ tl^E2 « c-
§ tf 1 i o •>• ^ -S B -8
• O § ° S'S w H •«i
E t o" 0* •§£**"? '§ '1 ^
_u|||l |||jl jl{
F'llzlfS 3^|.
6
! ! f?- r?
0-0
ci ^ x
^^ >n g.
^ 0 VD
s
"
o
! > Q S~ Z?
^3 * ^?
tO _^
Tt O r-
o
6
It /-V ^— > /-V
8^^ r~ •— '
Sv' ^"^
cn ?^,
n ° i
o
^ -5
i -— ^ £
1^8.
kg/hr (Ib/hr) (10'3)
kg/ampere-hr (gr/am|
Hexavalent chromium
mg/dscm (gr/dscf) (1
kg/hr (Ib/hr) (lO'3)
mg/ampere-hr (gr/an
C-96
-------
CO
I
u
u
9
1
iJ
On
U C
•H -H
3 Oi <«
"O OJ O
EC rH -U)
Q U
T3 O <1> 4->
C >-) iH Q)
ftf OJ 0) tH
U C
0) (1) E -H
C! rH 3
•H 0) -H W
X! SO
U g 0 4J
(d 3 >H td
S -H X! G
g U -H
CO g
O >H t) -H
•H X! >H rH
m u m QJ
•rH Jw
U T) OJ
0) >-( OJ m
fc rt fl -H
ft W 0 S
• •
Q)
U ••
C i rH
" M
3 O
O-H
.. CO jj
C rt
•• O C 0
fo -H O O
1 1 ,_J ^J
^J n r^
oj re CD
C J-l OQ 4J
(C Q) -H CO
rH QJ E
fS
oo
.
^ _ 0
S-. v_
f> 00
S^P^
o ri en
*ss
8 £ *,
cs oo >n
in C«
0 * ^
en 2? §
^XiJ
O
^H
-------
f^
§
o
-H
c
ni
tn
C
-H
.U
H-H 04
•O .u) O
ffi rH JJ
QjO -U
•O O 0) 0)
G r-l .H rH
RS ^j o jj
q rH
m u ni
a) v-i a) m
S-i ns G-H
On K O S
(1)
o ••
P O
a m
•• o c o
&4 -H O O
4J -H rH
4-> Rj CD
G M tn 4->
rt so
rN —
S ^ &
ri d 1
w d
oo (N vo p o
12 si «s
N O
8 E:
fN
0
C-98
-------
00
rH
rH
S
0)
jH
^ 0)
CrH
US >,
4J Q,
O
01 M
38
ll I
< Oi fO O
E-3 C rH ft
S -H ft
Q iJ O O
nJ M G
EH CO rH 4J
Cfl U ft U -
w CO O 0) 4->
PH -H H rH 0)
rH 4J 0) rH
W rt U G
g -H (U E -H
0 UrH ^
H 0) 0) -H (H
co ago
CO CO g O AJ
i-j rl lj irt
rn i-f f-t \\j
2 0) -H jG G
W E g U-H
0 0 g
fc rl >H -O -H
O ^ X! r* rH
u u m a)
>H £!
£ T3 T3 4J
2 ri w d) m
g rO m G -H
§ a K o s
CO
o
in m ro
G rl C3 JJ
(ti Q) -rl 03
rH a E <1)
ft O W EH
-
<*•> " C- 0-
o» ^ ^ o —
Os 5\ 5 J* S
t" vd
,». — _».— .—. ,—>.*,—
Ssz-88 jo £ 2 8 !i! £^2
~ - Ss1 * "I C- 6 S 8 ^^§
S ^2 * en en £ & S
— -tsC-C- o — *
5: £? * «: ^
Os os c» gj tn
4^ 1^
"" ^ -^^
^^^SS S°°SS lit \JDOO\O
^""^K°fc C'd^S ^o^^
S ^^ rl d6 ' ~*&
0 5: 2t ^ 5 ^
ON Os O H ">
^t P~
ON c U" mss /~ ^ «B ts /— ^ «B
i*!l 'u ^-i 1 fISiffeS
j*"! a" 1= lil?^ 115*
ISsp 4 e * s | 1'§3I|-"«S
, flifi lliil illflllfl
1l fl 81 HI I ^ l^llplli
§
-------
CO
rH
rH
a
XI
0)
0)
•3*
5 n
^
C S
••H rH
4-> O
£ -H ao
§ OJ 0 C
- CO rH JJ •
rrt -U Oj U 4->
^ CO O V 0)
£ -H }H rH rH
^ rH iJ CU OJ
rn rC U 3
E2 -H eu e o
o UrH 3
y cu CD -H >H
$ en's o 3
tjj . 0) -H X! C
" 2 2 -o -H
° CJ U (C (!)
£ T) T3 OJ
S M SH 0) CD
& rt n3 G -H
I ffi K 0 S
1
S ^
^ U ••
V-l C3
u d o
ca O-H
1 Cmm
S .. o c o
S o -H o o
^ OJ -H rH
jj rt to
C i-l CO U
tO 0) -H CO
•—i p! g rti
0,0 WH
:
"SB
o h
c •«
I ^
^
Q
2
3
OS
ts
6
c
—
o
Z
c
(£
1
°
!!!§§ &gog !!!
*. ~, ^ o r^ S
f^l 00 _^ ** fc
_. Pi CM
S S
ON 0 — O 0 ^-> o ^ ^ .11
""" *"* S ^ °° t- x **" 5
5 ^"2" a ^"^"
»-• •• N— '
O r- rn
2 2
ONOfjOQ ONvf~ovo> !!!
0 M ^
2 2
|gȣgg o^gf l!l
*^ f^ ^ ^
O fS 00
^5 ^^
-5-
"3
^
«
2-
•S .S
Eg
%| ^ |
|| e 13 l^la
C Co o c3 ** en *VII^TI* fc5 *™
'g*n.g' ^ „:* § S^^'S
» .2" § . a ° . 1 = !» 1 ^ S ^ |
.IN!! it ill in f H
tiU lP*»i
0 0 U
C-100
^^ C^ ^™
O ^ O
S' ^^ ^ S-
5 d p
* 6
^** ^ *~°*
g f~_ O
6 S- 6
^* t^l ^
K d s
6
<7T ON" £""
1£|
^ «s ^
O\ (S «
o
- K S
S-° S
ON CS t--
cn 6 §
o
^^
^ 1
1^1
^^" (^ fc*
8 2 ^29
1^-?
o O S*
1^1
ffil*
-------
M
in
i
U
w
m
fO
XI
0)
a
d a
nJ O
4J M
OriS
U rH
-H O
-H
JJ O -H
m M *
TO rH 4J
J-> ft U -
m o
•H V-l rH 0)
rH 4J QJ rH
mo c
•H (U E -H
U rH 3
0) 0) -H M
a E o
co E o jj
r) ^ T3-H
xi x: M H
u u rt a)
-C
T3 T3 4J
to Lt 0) m
to nj d -H
K K O S
u
o|
|i
n
CN
t- oo oo
* = 8
p ^^ 6
d
i
00
O\
d
Z
e
a
..
d
•• o
O-rl
4J
4J nj
C M
(D 0)
in a
& o
n a
3 O
O -H
CO 4J
m
a o
0 0
•H rH 1
CO
m jj
•H CO
E
-------
1
E-"
CO
W
f
H
CO
t-—
z
o
H
CO
CO
H
55 •
Pn
O
>H
2)
s
g
CO
ro
IT)
i
U
W
ij
,.
H
m
«
n
rH
rt
XI
0)
a
0)
rH
»*^
•>i
*: a
d o
rt rt
i 1 C\
^8
CTlrH
d o
-H tt
4-)
cnrt ,d
d rH 4J
•H Cll-H
4J 0 S
rrj ±4
CD rH 4-) -
4J £1 O 4J
CO O (1) 0)
•H SH rH rH
rH 4-1 0) 4->
rt o 3
-H H (ti
<1)-H X! C
E E O-H
00 E
>H rl T) -H
f r< li _j
r*H »*-( M rn
CJ U ft 0)
X!
T3 "O 4->
>H >H a) co
rt rt d -H
K ffi o S
-i
0 o
O -H
•• CO 4J
d rt
.. o d u
CD-H O O
4J -H rH
4J rt m
d rt m aJ
rt
d
a
^
d
e
p£
5
A
a
'''88 o? jj S~ S^ ill
§ g NO ^ S 00
X. «. >-• o r- «
« t- q ^ rf
fS v^ ^1,
t~- ^-
o o
gJSSSS? oo £ & & !!!
^^2§S 5§^r5S
— *-! w. ^^ o t~ vO
§ "^ 8 dd
22
C~ R S
o o
e
'S
u^
u
•o
s-^ ^"^
•S .c
^1 ?
^ 8 rrT £
s5 i. C T3 *? C
^ x '5 - o s-
i £ ff r?f Xcl |
c fe » ?_ B « <*^ ^ .S
•§ ^ s. | rr b. ^ § 82^ i
- E S ^ S .2 -i 8 5 c *• I
g'-I * !- a . e^ ll fe^il
•- S JJ 1 •3£*:j]s Si-^r5£^
"ro2^ el -5-1 °SB£g.|
Sf-^u5 Eggcg EJa0!'^
_, •= ? s s 3 S i -a « 1 "S •« i S ^
EI mi iilii ips^i
CiC^.^c-H aH2 fc
«7 S
2 p
c^T^c
8 2 ^5
"° ^ i-
t ^^ ja
60 1- I
w^ £
e £ 8.
o ^ S"
^^1
trig
-------
10) **>
~ !
<^
O
u ^
60
Ii
0>
J«i O
••** hi
C 2
rt o
^ £
Cn
C
•rH
G rH
§ G-H ft
1-1 -H 4J O n
L, 4-> (ti M .
E (« rH 4J 0
g rH ftO *
S 04 o S
S 4-1 ^1 T3 ^1 -^
u G XJ M (U §
K-. O U (ti .Q r$
^ g ^s
fy. w ^^ »*^
a 6 TJ 3
5« O M O ^4
f< -H tc a u
g 04 K t-i W
01
1*
ID '!
v
ri O ••
U M G
M 30
J 0-H
a HOS
fi •• O G U
^ H -H O O
4J -rl rH
4-) fti 03
C S-l 03 4J
nS Q) -H CQ
rH ft g 0)
DJ O W E-i
1
i i * O O /~v
^* •* c^
VO
u
g
o
"O
£ *'s
•S ' '1
•°« 1 il
I 1 a" 1 1 1
M^ 5 fc ~ e
- £ 1 8 3.8 1
^ ° E ^ S 3 "I *
jSSjgl^l a
/-N O /-V ^-s
oo 'r o o
C^^ ^ JS
^^ V] t^
VO <-T n\"
(S 2 Si-
^iS
gj «
5^^ o o
t~ tn o • © o
r^ '
r- M ro • ^M ••
— ' • •— i d- .
r - 2, ±-n e,
to iri o o ^ ts
- oo 5 K ? ;•
m 2 V S
k **-^
3 $
^ u ^^ u
*? i
-------
O vo
O T3
£8
o vn
VO
6
e
o
<§
0)
3
•H
JJ
a
o
6
c
in
U
W
&
oo 52,
a 2
a
oo
o
PR &
t-w 2
a S
S^^S 8 =
-
.-. J^ t-
o
§
a
£ S 88 2
S <"! *l
JS •* 00
00
o
f-
a
3>
"Sb
°C
0
>
v 00
vo vo
oo vo o —
vo
oo f) -• r~ vo
•* — oo «s r~
es — m
vo — —
ri G^
o
*
-------
0)
C
-H
a
o
u
in
U
w
F:
t-
£
«s —
oo
a
"S .3
2 >29 g
If
C-105
-------
-o
QJ
3
C
-H
JJ
a
o
u
*"•"•'*
in
U
w
J
1
**« V3
& V
«8 w
o K
§ —" —
*** ^3
•so'S
O ^* *
M oi
2 2
>
<
£1
6
4—4
,3
6
G
3
otf
o
o
Z
e
1
CS I/I
-*1 oo"
! ! ' § 5 **^
n * ^*
en vo ^,
—
—
| § | S 1 5
y «n vo" ^
§""" \£
Q
^™*
M 8 I; cs en ^
is - S; " ^ ">
cs en vo ^,
§ |2
•
•^^ ^^ ^^
00 ^^
O o
^
I
J
•M
§
1
8
S
•o
General
. . Date
Sampling time, min
Isokinetic radio, %
Process rate, ampere-hr/hr
Total current, ampere-hr/hr
Scrubber liquid chromic aci
Gas stream data
(^ CS S CS
\O Q Q\
cs _ •^~-
X p
cs N
P t SS
t"^ CS O Os
^— • — • m
""> ef oT
cs 2 S-
^ cs
S ^
r^ cs o Os
vo o* oT
01 coT
s ^s
cs
^> Vi i^* i?1
00 .OO
f~ cs o t~
v— - — «n
~. o S
r~ cs o fs
"^ ^ ^
^^K
i
1
•§ -°
«• 1
Temperature, °C (°F)
Moisture, %
Actual flow rate, m /min (1
Dry standard flow rate, dsc
Chromium emissions
C-106
OO — V>
vo cs oo
fsl ^ ^
o S ^^
en „ o
vo" cs
j* 2 vD
* CS Tr
^i- ^"^ ^s
«^ *o S-
SJ ^
*- s
Tf cs es1
cs oo oo
cs, C- ^
C^ CS 00
*"1 ^ ^
«r> cs
VO 00 O
vo — Os
O Os
vo en
^* Os V^
oo en cs
ci^S
_ oo S
° 2 -
vo" en
J3
Total chromium
mg/dscm (gr/dscf) (10"3)
kg/hr (Ib/hr) (10'3)
mg/ampere-hr (gr/ampere-
Hexavalent chromium
5. »S
G, ^ **•
o ® v~'
— O
-------
<
s
<
3
H
CO
w
E-"
CO
S3
O
H
CO
CO
H
2
w
fc
o
S-i
•X
3
s
2
CO
tn
in
i
U
U
J
CQ
S
S
S ^
*• 1
"o S
.*
C
fC
Jj
tfl
fl
-H
4J
t> ^
M .
SS S
52
ee
tn
1
C
06
tn ns
Cn a r-i
C-H ft
•H 4-) O
4J (C M
(0 rH 4J
rH ft O
ft O 0)
M rH
r-( 4J (U
rd U
-H 0) £
>-l rH 3
.U 0) -H 4J
CO g CU
3 E O rH
t} 3 r< -U
C -H X! P
H E U O
o
4-> lH TJ r<
C 43 >H (U
o o as ,Q
C _rj O
E^ »*H **-<
'O TJ 3
0) r< O M
•H 03 i U
ft K h CO
(S
1
C
fS
Mb
0
C
0£
• •
OJ
u ••
r4 C
3 O
0-H
.. CO JJ
C (t
•• O C CJ
H-H O O
aJ -H iH
i-> (tJ CQ
(H t 1 •»» 1 }
W« M QJ 4J
(tl 0) -H CO
rH ft £ 0)
ft O W EH
1
i i ' 8 8 -
^ p «s
vo" rf P,
— ^
^
S§ S8 8^
^^ ^*- *• cs
S "2^
o ^
t^
^*
*O Q ^t O O -~-
oo R o Q o ~
& "~ "" . ^
oo «s o S 0 g
ON "" "" 1 ^ —
- VO 00
en
^•^
x~s
a,
•^
o
^-'
u
~5b
g"
O
1
0
1
•B
«a '5
lil
I* III
« o* § " ."2
Jiff!
M .Si 2 C u.
- J g S § J8
l^Hii^
|Q| j£^«8
0?
t-
v~'
VO
cs
^ 22
cs o p
*"1 .
— 2
^— ' *^S
m u^
<-^ ^
cn rs
S^00. &&
s_<^ fi 9
t^
rs
5?<
tf
S
^ tn
zf 2"
'W SM'
2 g
ff) ^
=! 22
S2§
~ 2*
N^1 >*^
2 S^
en o •
q <£ 8
S-BS
VO >O 00
_,; m vp
8 * 9
o o
SVO Q
. i« 9
0^0
oo
5S8
, ^ ,
t^ ^.
q oo 8
S-S-S-
t^ — (S
• 00 vo
Sdl
cn
-------
0)
3
G
-H
4J
C
O
U
ID
ID
U
w
o
g1"-
S3 •*
> .
0
d
Z
o
Z
B
3
I
s88
p* •-•
o" o"
ON oo
q^
r-
00
r*
— 00 Cl
— •« o
q ON q
2, S- 9-
•* oo o\
• en §*
oo
O
8
— en m
Sec O
— ; O
<* o
^s P
1 |
o*?^ t .2
-------
o
51
<*. a
o .
1 •
oo, ri o 8
" "
v-
Tt
O
00, tS
o\
T?
00
cs
o" o"
88
en tN
o;
d
c
•H
U
c
o
u
in
in
i
U
w
t- o en
qSS
«n o
t~ oo 5
5*1
O •
O
5^8.
S-«^
oo r- —
en' ^ J^
en O 2
C-109
-------
tinued)
o
u
in
in
U
w
l-q
§
H
Average of
test series
! = ;
0 ~|
2
1
e
(*
d
c
o
o
e
S,
3
I 1 > 1 s 1
•* oo"
' ' ' O °| en1
O
l§iS§=
00 ' vo
O o
\O O ••-* O O /*~s
go 2? 1
|
p
j=
o
o
H
? °^ 1
*?1!
B dS 8.|
y ^ a —
lil >
« M g> X
E ^ B «
S
8 2
5 ^
^S
^«5
B 1
Q \»^
Q W)
G £A
s
I
C-110
-------
in
U
§
CO
J*
G
(C
Cn
as u
0)
00)
C 4J
m u
O 0) O
U r< JJ
e -c H
ffi X! XJ
U
rH 0)
0) T3 Q)
0) M ^
OJ
3
M
CO ffi
o
CO
U ..
r< C
3 O
O -H
.. CO JJ
c m
.. o c o
« -H o o
AJ -H rH
-U (0 CD
C r< CO 4J
(0 0) -H OQ
H &B 0)
cu o w B
o
z
3
Q
O\ t--
ON r4 8
IS
o —
d ^ S " -
S o 2 £ 6
oo
55
-------
r-
U
$
CO
c
AJ
tn
C
•H
J->
Cn a
c o
(ti U
rH (1)
O Q)
££ g
(C O 3
I'rH'g
O (U O -U
-i rC M
a x: xi o)
U £1
rH Q) X3
flj tj Ij Ij
jj re! il u
co ffi E-i co
— £
CS O\
o Z-
cs
oo
0
-------
II € en
X
C
nl
4J
tn
£
-H
4J
.*** f*T^ frt
rt, 01 ro
EH C rH
ii« -i-4 O.
rt, " >-M
H t{ P
IB -o
•
**» *
0 ~
ft.
^S
V <7
> *
en
O
Z
c
a
nj V-i
EH H 4J
co au
a o Q)
EH ^ H
4J 0)
CO U
2 -i t3 M
o -x: s-t a)
c u ns j2
JH 0 A ft
£ -H -o 3
2 CD M a) n
2 3 rO C u
2 ^ ffi O CO
CO
CO
i r\ nt
Ln *^
U ••
^ b s
3 O
H O -H
j •• m u
CQ C 03
a •• o c o
£ J-rl O O
iJ -H iH
4-> (fl CD
C in m 4J
rt CD -H m
•H ttg 0)
DJ O W H
«s
4
e
a
PC
03
O
c
fi£
5
. Q
! I O O -^ ^O i^ iT* i i i y-*\ /*-s ,^-v
i SS g«8f ''' a:;^
"* « il i£i
S-*' N-^ O
<5 r- - fn g;
« en r-~ fN .
n oo
2J Q r> o O O t> C^ iT1 iii /— >, /-v ^v
ootNoop S2~;22 111 es r~ o\
& *•* ^** en \c oo eN v o ^ • \^
c? •" ^ ^ '"^ ^"^ i i i >— «* ^-^ >-^
oofNoSS 2^SS i!i esoTP
^--99 SS^gg S^2
5 " a a" 2 Sse
o Ci C ^ oo ^^
^ • fl
vo >r> •* O ff
vo en 3 «s .
«T) vn vo
|S§gg |2|| ! ! ! ?^^
I "" a aa S|I
O *— ^ >— ^ -_ c^
oo •* §5 <> £n
r- ? es •
V) «•> en
1
1
TD
•1>.^'
e *5
en- | £ "£
« I •? •?
^•1 «T i «T I
• ^ ^ ^ 'i »" 2 ff 2 1
a s & o^ -; e „ ^^1 |±:-l
•g^pOfi. s_- E. 2 *?en j- .2 C>n c
-*N. a." |l |||fejj|bj
fif! |i;ii
jiiii
C-113
-------
§ *
2 -o
•*- 5
o a
oo
> «
<0
VO
0
•O
C
-H
O
u
CO
in
i
U
w
o
Z
B
o
8
°
S
|S
82
^^ *~s
00 •—
r- TJ-
U1 IT)
-
(S 00
8
oo "_• oo
\O 17 Ov
vo *^
as
tS V)
en O oo
«59
S,"" g,
^^8
l*s *•* •
? f*
5?'^ 8
r» S O
\c • o\
r- oo —
8" 2"
^^ s^
00 p-
t- •*
\ri in
* *
— Tt O\
r- • — <
^^ 00 ^^
o ^
oo M
5 V
e 2
1 i
l
i
C-114
-------
IS
Me
u
4) *-
£ S
<; »•
5 «
2 T3
•o §
u «-
fefl
?!
> z
<
00
i
•O 1 3
s| "
c
•H
JJ
c
0
u
^*-
t-~
6
co 2
m cs
i 3
u «
w
J
m
1
11 Q
11 '11 gSff ' ' ' s5??
*• "* ^"^ r*^ ^™* *^ ^n _^
*^ <£> — lr -.- • * ^
" S£ a?e
*^ ^" O\ ^ v
r- rf S cs ^
n t-
!!igg S^&o" !!! 5^??^
&;§ $ ~
s Sc a^s
§ 5 g a' 5
»r> >n "^ r>-
ooSSSS £? ^. & & : : i ^s^s^
*^ *" ^^ ^^ W i»/ _I ac ac ^i 'T ^T
^ — — 00 VO O^fSQO O_-«S
S •*"• s I? gi£
^ ^ W ^ TT
?55 §89
Vi >/•> ^00
SSoc^8 «^oo ! ! ! o?£T?T
^JiSSg ocfsSo 8^8
en » " ^^ vo m LJ ^» *^
C? « o - x- «r ^ ^ •
55 -mg2 S'-'S
^"^ s~' ^» ^* — .
m r- K * oo
oo •* fJ «s ":
*O *O f1^
r— s
C
E
**•
^
tfj
T3
/•™s
.£ o
E '|
tn~ > S S
c jd
a s « wr fi — s
«5u e TJ *?«*?«
^ •? 'i o" ° I* ° I"
i*|| § is i If slid
H if J's«fi il!l|ls?l
, 11 I i|i = l II?Hlf|
If I'll 3 5 l|lf. |3 ft i l|4|
ja^jl^ jiSljil1 llE^E.jE^a
I
_
e
_o
«
_c
2
e
8
4)
"H.
E
3
CO
U
!E
1
£
u
S
•o
u
eo
2
$
to
o
£
.E
"8
"O
_3
"o
I
1
6
«*
C-115
-------
X
G
fft
< 5
H
< Cn
Q G
•H
EH 4-1
CO CD (C
W G rH
E-< -H a
4J O
co n! >H
S rH 4J
O CX U
M O 0)
CO W rH
CO 4J
fa £ 0)
O £ O rH
• 3 M 4->
>•< O -H ,G 3
rt G S o o
K HO
2 rJ T3 H
S >X! ^ QJ
E> G U m ,Q
co o x: ,Q
-H T3 p
m M 0) IH
3 fO G 0
cr\ fa K O CO
in
1
o 5
« as
•— i ^ n
§ §°
S •• m 4-1
H G (ti
•• O G 0
J-H O O
4J -H rH
jj m CQ
G ^ m 4J
rt o)-H m
rH a s *i
S «H<
< 8
r?8 w^OO ! ! ! Pf-TP
^° S2,^r5g 5^8
^ "> S oo ^ o^o
^c N 2 N
1^4 ^^ CH
°S S! -9
vi ^ fn .
1 ** O
o\ o r^i o o ^™^ fls /l~s "•"*» ' ' ' /— ^ '*^v /— "^
OoSoSS SSSS !•• 80^00
^ - 2 S S S2,^®1 5^8
«J ^* ft co ^ s^e
j^ «S — _ -^ ^ ^^
v— ' s™^ r^l «n ^6
|r5g§§ g^§2 ! ! ! Esg
5; — — e o "^ooS orjS
CT « * op oo* r-* 6-0
in ^ — — — o\ ^^
— ' — o — r-
C1^ f""» • • ^^
mo S5 "" f*
IT) «« W 0
SSS2? cZ^.S'S i : : G'So'S1
2?^2S$ SoiSS S^o
A. ^^ ^^ * >" S^^r Irt f»^ ^5 " ^J
^n *- * ^^ ^"* ^^ ** **j ^^
- ^^ oo oo" (-" 6—0
01 c-c. ^2^
t- — • • —
S >9 w "^
Wl »/•) rn Q
/*^
«M
0
en
•^
.1" c
B 'i ^ ^
rf | IT JT
« s 7 "^
i_ >-' &! ^ fi ^^ fi
!„ a-3 •?!•?«
J * '§" °|-01
i e s: m- 1 XWT 1 i S*r 1
S B 5 t- E E « ^^ la -5 C1^ ^,
•H wb y Q, ^^^ Ct G Q O WJ c Q O ™
geKa,ff ,, .5 S 8 i; — • B 8 is — •
-S§ o £r2 '5B< — >a2s — *•
joS* -° -sc Sa^x-s^aj^^x
11 if *f»ii 11 flil |l|
nil ! J ! I I«H«
o o u
C-116
-------
f
T3
CD
£
•H
^J
C
0
U
•
o>
in
I
U
w
1-3
CQ
^
H
d T3 >>D
3 C
(-1 rd
H-l •
O m
CD •>
Cn**1
rd
M •
CD ro
> 0
< fc
vc
•
0
S3
C
Di
in
•
O
£3
C
j3
cd
^
•
0
£5
C
d
rd
rd
Q
ii i O O
i i i CN O
\O CN
- -
ro p»
,
<3\ o ro o o
CO CN O O O
\ H H r- ^r
H - >
CN ro f»
\.
in
CTi O CN O O
00 CN O O O
\ H H V£> CN
H - -
CN ro !>
^v.
in
CTi O CN O O
oo CN o in o
\ H H in H
H - >
CN CO r-
"s^
in
s-i
r;
*\ ^_(
M x;
XI '
i CD
CD k
M CD
C CD ft
•H » ft E
£ 0 E rd
-H rd
- jJ
0) rd > 4J rd
g ^ g o o -u ro
CD rd ro ro ^-t O
C Q co H a E-i m
CD rd
O O
—~ OO -~- -- - '
CN • O O i
00 CN O O
• — ' ^O C*-
•. «.
00 00 C~-
CN H H
• — • « — •
r- H
CN O
in in
_ H -^ ^-. i
CN • 0 0 i
oo ro o o
^- in VD
» »
CO 00 Is"
CN H H
^i CO
CN CTl
in Tt
— . CTi "- — I
^ • O O i
00 CN O O
>— in vo
» »
CT> 00 >
CN H H
' — —
^ CO
CN CTl
in *j<
^- in --~ — i
iH • O O i
CO CN O O
— f. 0
r~ co co
CN H H
•— —
0 0
ro H
in in
. — .
ro
C '
-H 0
E I-H c -a
o rd u-G o g "^
X-| ^s, -H 3 V-I
•On ro -H en
CD ? Ku ro E "^
te O rctt -HO
3 -rH TJO E ^ E
4J CD M-l C^ CD XI U
rd h <-^ rd u ro
M d rHC A-C3 E ^
CD AJ (*H OH 3 rH \
ft ro ;3E E -H n5 CD
E -H j>^ >>. E -u E
Q) O & l£ O O
H S QU ^ H
*t-i a> x!
— T5 O
C-117
i i »-~ *-* *-*
ii O in ro
H in o
o • o
• H •
0^0
N^- «— '
in
^ o in
' F* CT>
ro • H
CN O •
O
1 1 ,— - *-^ ^^
ii O H ro
H in o
0 • 0
• H •
0 *— O
CM co in
• U3 CO
CN • H
CN 0 •
O
1 1 «-« *-^ ~-^
ii C^ CN ro
0^0
0 • 0
• H •
o^-o
• — • — •
VD
VO ^* O^
• ^D r*-
H • H
CN O •
0
i i ^— *-^ ^-«
ii i-l ro ro
H r- o
o • o
• H •
o ^- o
^D
r- ao H
• r- CN
in • CN
CN O •
o
XI XI
CD t*r CD
M 1 ^
CD o Q)
—.ft H -~* ft
rd ' (d
H M § 4-1 H >-l
^ Cn -H u »-' en
— E ra —
— o -O —
XI X! XI ^ XI XI
^ i u cn^s i
X) CD —* £) CD
rH >-J 4J rH M
-< CD a g —• 0)
ft CD CJ ft
ME rH ra M E
xl re rd T3 x! rd
Cn Cn rd Cn Cn Cn
M E X S .* E
CD
K
-------
t ^
T5
CD
^
-H
4J
£
o
^^
.
cri
in
U
W
J
§
E-<
M-I 03
O ft)
-H
ft) M
CD ft)
m 03
M
ft) JJ
> 03
ft, (D
t3 oo
2
M 73
C
M-I 03
0
p-
ft)
CD •
03 O
M £5
0)
>
rt<
00
.
O
rt
5
>
0
S5
C!
d
03
JJ
OS
Q
i i i o o •— - cr\ •— » —~ i ii oS nj oS
ii'Oo m • O O ii f^ f£ f£
H P» OOCNOO £5 £5 £5
•» ik •• — p* CD
m ^D * •••
00 CO P-
CN H H
O "*
mo »
in in
i i i o o '—* cr> —" •— • > i i — — •—• •—»
i i i p» o CN • o o iii CTimm
inm
->^HCDU) OOCNOO omo
m • • -^ co cr> o • o
CN CN in » • H •
\. 00 CO P> O *" O
in CN H H ^^ —
H H CTi
CN f^ • W) H
mo o • CN
in in CN o •
o
(TlCNODOO x-»(Tl— »-— i ii *-x^_
oo
r~ *f • vo H
CN O CN • CN
in in CN o •
o
WC i'
X) -H O O
i g ft) H — rH -^
i ft) ^^ jj ^^ m ~~* m
0) M -^ m oS ' •
<*»r(ft) fagr4 — - 0 g^-0
CJft>ft 0 MHH3M-IH
•H»ftg -^ »i*^ CJ — ' •HO-'
gOgn] ft>0£0303 g03
•HO] L)jJr-HjHT3— OTJ^-
» JJ - 0 03 MHg Og^v rtiH W^^ rlr4
ft) n3 * JJ 03 ^-i ^^ "^ 3 ^H rf3 43 *^3 M 43 43
g (-1 ft) (3 JJ - 7>-l 03-HCD>S».'--»CJCD^'^
-H JJft) (tJftlrfPSrO 03 g — 43 OH ^jQOJrl
JJ U HJ r) 'd W O OJD -HO I-HM3JJ rH>H43
•Hrlr) P»rHT30 gSHg^ftllflg— ft)'
CDJJ 3 gjJaiM-iC- (U43CJ ODOCJ ftCD
COJ03 O roOSrl'^Oj U03 rlgMrH03 rlgr)
•H C3 03 ft) r( 3 r- C 1 fi g T3 pC (TJD flS T3 43 rtJ <1)
rH rH-HDrH rlOJJJnJHOH drH^^'^ ^^CU > ^^ ^^ \ ft
03ft)ft^U 03 JJft03?g g -HrCCDCDCjEoJCDCDCDg
rfjjgooMjj o3g-H 4>x >[;. gjjg^Sr3Xgj«igro
ft)n3oJ03WO ftiOMre OO ^0> ^>
aQCOHOxE-" 03E-i2rt)JpJ riE-< WK JH
ft) >H 05 MH 03 43 -— CD -— CD
CD -c; Ol — •oUm-'m —
OJ
03
d
oS
CJ
ft)
rQ
"O
ft) CD
JJ C
C-H
ft) JJ
03 03
fl) Vj
M/ M
w ft)
ft ft
Q
4J
O 0)
Crj
x^
-H
0) >
H (D
1O Aj
03 rH
CD O
•H W
r4 JJ
ft) G
03 O
u
JJ
03 JJ
ft) G
JJ ft)
M
ft) ft)
45 M-I
JJ M-I
•H
0
(1)
\u
UJ 'U
ft) 13
fn rH
W ' 1— '
It ^^
ft) ft)
> p
«v4 i ,
os £
v./
mU_j
•^•^
G ^
O (D
•H ft
03
m 03
•H 03
g s
03
. rj
0) rt
rH
jQ JJ
n3 03
O 0)
•H JJ
i-H
ftM-l
ft 0
rtj •
ft 03
JJ 3 C
o o o
S5 rl -H
CDJJ
II -H
-------
o
ND
i
u
w
_q
°l
ft .*
M d
o n
U 4J
co en
n c
0 -H
4-> 4J
o en tc
S d 1-1
•H O,
r-l 4J O
(t (ti ^
rJ rH 4J
i
> 3 >-l CQ
•H -H XJ
Q§°^
CO M CU M
1 1 ("• ^ 1 N
AJ An P -U
U U -rl d
dl \ f^
-U O
T3 0) rt U
O > !H
^ -H O O
Oj 4J U 4-1
nj CJ
O ^ T) 4J
U O 0)
rH U (D rH
0) QJ d d
P P O H
Q)
CJ ••
f . f-l
M C
3 0
0-H
•• CD 4J
Ctrl
(o
.. o d u
S -H O O
4J -H rH
4J ft) m
d >-l CO 4-1
(t 0) -H CQ
rH Ci E
OS
rs
,
5
XI.
1
MM
'""
6
i£i
c
a;
5
(3
a
en
oo
NO
ON rf p-
es es es
^ C 9
o o
*Zs —• 5t-
g NO' w>
9 v> r-
» ft — '
5\ < i« ON
2 8
* 8.
2 S
VO IT! —
«s 0 es
^ C9
S-U S-
00
00
NO
NO — es
"! C9
BON S,
O —< OO
Q O
5 S
fi 2 S
rn gj
NO
* R
w —
r~ en
E «
^ 2
<§
C-119
-------
X
c
rt
AJ
O CD
a a
H -H
AJ
- tnnJ
CD C rH
OJ-H Cu
•H AJ O
AJ (0 M
rH rH AJ
- .w /•". r »
,rf (O M4 W
S -H O 0)
S U r) rH
Q 0) AJ 0)
o. r >
i-M *-*
EH W <1) g
CO r-H P
H 9) 0) -H
FH ^ E "•
-H g 0 T)
CO AJ P >H H <1) >H
03 0) ^ > AJ
H -H U -H C
g Q 4J 0
3 (U rt u
0 > k G
TJ. -H -H O P
o tJ ti S~
n3 fC QJ
SH g M T3 AJ
2 O O Q)
2 AJ O (1) rH
p*1 1^ /<1\ (-^ .—1
g P (U C G
H < D O H
CO
•
v^ fl)
, o ••
u ^§
m O -H
3 rl m tJ
pn C nS
3 •• o d o
5 s -H o o
^ AJ -rl rH
AJ nj CD
C ^ CQ AJ
(ti 0) -H CO
•H a s a)
ft O M E-"
"*- V]
o .83
M) S
g ^
> 41
<
w
d
z
c
5
K
«S
d
Z
£
«•«
d
c
ftr1
M*
1
t i i Q O ^"v ^* /***. f"~\ i
1 ' ' g g O • O O '
vo K t- — r~ vo
fsj" VO" ^ * tn-
- rs «s
C4 ^ *^
p oo
O* vd
r~ vo
SSSSS o*SS 1
3; - - 8 8 & - 5Q S
- cs «n « - -
^ r» G' ^
•* f\
Ov vo
vo vo
00 P "• C S ^f^^"^ !
oor^-fiS OO*OO
1 s » * R e-5*
5 "" 8 cici
rs r-
o i>
r~ vo
igS8| ?Sg§ '
oo ^ ^ ^ •* r.
5 ^ °° a dd
^r
vr> oo
R «
'a*
|
0
en
•a
^ •.;>
•a c
B 'i
rn~" >
C E
*i ^^ * .JO
tS . 0 T3 •?
^ h -3 . o
•ft o -5 S C
u c U. «.-; f O\
O^ C*l
II o a fn
1 68
a» e
en <** O
g ^
"•" —
II 0s
8 «? «
a. b S-
kg/hr (Ib/hr) (1(T3)
mg/ampere-hr (gr/am
Hexavalent chromium
mg/dscm (gr/dscf) (1
kg/hr (Ib/hr) (1(T3)
mg/ampere-hr (gr/am
C-120
-------
CO
u
d
H
d
m M
rH rH 4-)
Id CX U
-H O (U
U H rH
0) 4-> 0) -
a u
CO Q)
0)
en CD-H d
d __ E id
o
o
3
S
vo
n oo
vo
.
.2
Z
00 .OO
— ir> vo
•* en
ci cf
N*^ S»^
rr 00
O O X
•^ ^~ o
P* OO ^
°8
6
S
— m
ON VC
9 V,
°8
d
CO
S
O
H
CO
CO
H
W
b
o
>H
!^
S
g
R
CO
rs
U)
i
U
w
J
§
EH
•U 3 M XJ
CO-rJX!
ns E u E
U o rt
SH a) o
m r-< kk n ,
vU pin r* ^^
-H U -H
P 4J,d
Q) (d J->
U > ^ -H
-H -H O £
4J 4J U -—
(d id (i)
E to T3 4->
O O OJ
4J U 0) rH
g a) d d
< Q O H
..
(1)
u ••
M d
•"1 A
^J W
O-H
•• OQ 4J
(H .W
>H (0
• • o d o
S -H O O
U -H rH
4J Id CO
d M CQ oJ
fd (U -H no
rH CX E <1>
ft O W H
u
C
Qi
•*
.
O
e
3
a:
I
General
vO vo
fSff
8
— oo
<3\ vo'
vo vo
• e
C T3
1«
"e «
C-121
-------
f£
a
3
EH
CO
W
PH
L
3SIONS
H
2
fa
S-i
K^
<3
g
2
CO
•
m
v£>
U
H
j
CQ
a
H
L *
^
C
1*4
TO — ~
4J iJ
c
u en rt
u Cm
H -H m
4J (1)
- tn m M
ro c M a
oj-H a a
-H 4J O 3
OJ (ti M CQ
tH iH AJ
rt a o QJ
•H O 0) g
U >-l rH 3
QJ 4J 0) IW
a u
co a) g d
rH 3 O
en 0) -H -H
C g 4J
•H g o nj
J-> ^3 H fl
CQ -H X! -H
rt g u .q
U 0 1
^ Q) O
0) £ > U
-H O -H
D U ^!
0) (ti OJ
U > fc-rl
-H -H O S
JJ 4J O — -
(tf (tf (V
g i-i "O o->
o o a)
JJ O 0) rH
P <1J C C
-i C
3 O
O -H
.. m j->
C rt
•• o a u
S -H O O
4J -H rH
j-> rt ro
CJ M CD U
n3 0) -ri OQ
•H a g 'g
tf*
t« *ri
5 S
<
o
z
g
aj
00
o
z
q
QC
t~-
o
c
(5
1
Q
i : i g 8
00 V>
ri o
oo o in o Q
00 00 ^J O O
*-~ *>M 00 £ l7s
VO OS . .
ts ts oo
^>
oo o oo o o
oo 9 -x o o
^ « 8 *. f-.
ts " os "i n.
«s cs —
^ ""
1^
& £
a -8 * -
I s a =
M .a 2 c
B « B) 3
• £« U M O
C O H* "d O "3
g -a § o | f
§ Q # ^2 £ H
0
**! *"!
ri ri
^ -~^
r~ vo
o o o
XXX
oo vc
en vp m
22 8
rlr^ 6
ri oo
< ><
X-S *^S S~\
r~ vo m
bob
"x "x "x
tn vo g
008
"x "x b
«s vn
XX
00 vo
X
O
09
VO
tn vo m
b b 8
5 5 b
u
I
o
«=
i
C-122
-------
TABLE C-64. PROCESS OPERATING PARAMETERS MONITORED DURING
SAMPLING AT RELIABLE PLATING AND POLISHING COMPANY,
BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT
Anodizing bath
temperature , Current ,
Run No. °C (°F) amperes
1 35
2 35
3 35
4 35
Average 35
(95)
(95)
(95)
(95)
(95)
80-100
20-40
20
100
20-100
Voltage,
volts
35
36
37
16
36
Outlet water
flow rate,
L/min (gal/min)
7
7
7
7
7
.5
.2
.2
T?
.5
(2.
(1.
(1.
(2.
(2.
0)
9)
9)
£1
0)
C-123
-------
TABLE C-65. ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF COMPOSITE SAMPLES
TAKEN DURING EACH TEST RUN AT RELIABLE PLATING
AND POLISHING COMPANY, BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT
Sample description
Sample concentration, fig/mL (oz/gal)
Run No.
Hexavalent chromium
Total chromium
Outlet scrubber water
1
2
3
4
Average
3.9 (5.2 x ID"4)
0.8(1.1x10-4)
0.3 (4.0 x 10"5)
5.1 (6.8 x IP"4)
2.5 (3.3 x 10"4)
3.9 (5.2 x lO"4)
0.8(1.1x10^)
0.3 (4.0 x 10"f))
5.1 (6.8 x K
2.5 (3.3 x 10
Inlet scrubber water3
1
2
3
4
Average
<0.1 (0)
< 0.1(0)
<0.1 (0)
<0.1 (0)
<0.1 (0)
<0.1 (0)
<0.1 (0)
<0.1 (0)
<0.1 (0)
Anodizing bath
1
2
3
4
Average
50,300 (6.72)
50,500 (6.74)
50,700 (6.77)
50.300 (6.72)
50,450 (6.74)
52,000 (6.94)
51,900 (6.93)
51,100(6.82)
50.300 (6.72)
51,325 (6.85)
aThe amount of chromium in the inlet water stream was below the detectable limit of the analytical
procedure (0.1 /ig/mL) and was assumed to be equal to zero.
C-124
-------
TABLE C-66. ESTIMATED UNCONTROLLED CHROMIUM MASS EMISSION RATES
BASED ON HEXAVALENT AND TOTAL CHROMIUM CONCENTRATIONS OF OUTLET
SCRUBBER WATER AT RELIABLE PLATING AND POLISHING COMPANY IN
BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT
Run No.
1
2
3
4
Average
Uncontrolled chromium
emission rate at
scrubber efficiency of
90 percent, kg/hr
(lb/hr)a
0.0019 (0.0042)
0.00039 (0.00086)
0.00015 (0.00033)
0.0025 (0.0055)
0.0012 (0.0026)
No. of parts or
racks anodized
14 racks
22 parts
16 parts
17 racks
Type of part
Small aircraft and
parts
Aircraft parts
Aircraft parts
Small aircraft and
parts
anodized
electronic
electronic
aTotal and hexavalent chromium concentrations in scrubber water were equal.
C-125
-------
C.4 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX C
1. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Greensboro Industrial
Platers, Greensboro, North Carolina. Entropy
Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EMB
Report 86-CEP-l. March 1986.
2. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Consolidated Engravers
Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina. Peer Consultants,
Inc., Dayton, Ohio. Prepared for U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EMB Report 87-CEP-9. May 1987.
3. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Able Machine Company,
Taylors, South Carolina. PEI Associates, Inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio. Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EMB
Report 86-CEP-3. June 1986.
4. Emission Test Report: Roll Technology Corporation,
Greenville, South Carolina. Peer Consultants, Inc., Dayton,
Ohio. Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EMB
Report 88-CEP-13. August 1988.
5. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Precision Machine cind
Hydraulic, Inc., Worthington, West Virginia. Peer
Consultants, Inc., Dayton, Ohio. Prepared for U. S. .
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. EMB Report 88-CEP-14. September 1988.
6. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Hard Chrome
Specialists, York, Pennsylvania. Peer Consultants, Inc.,,
Dayton, Ohio. Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EMB
Report 89-CEP-15. February 1989.
7. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Piedmont Industrial
Plating, Statesville, North Carolina. Entropy
Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EMB
Report 86-CEP-04. August 1986.
8. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Steel Heddle Company,
Greenville, South Carolina. PEI Associates, Inc.,
Cincinnati, Ohio. Prepared for U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EMB Report 86-CEP-2. June 1986.
C-126
-------
9. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Fusion, Inc., Houston,
Texas. Peer Consultants, Inc., Dayton, Ohio. Prepared for
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. EMB Report 89-CEP-16. May 1989.
10. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: GMC Delco Products
Division, Livonia, Michigan. Peer Consultants, Inc.,
Dayton, Ohio. Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EMB
Report 87-CEP-7. March 1987.
11. Chromium Electroplaters Test Report: Automatic Die Casting
Specialties, Inc., St. Clair Shores, Michigan. Prepared for
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. EMB Report 88-CEP-11. April 1988.
12. Memo from Barker, R., MRI, to Vervaert, A., EPA/ISB.
May 15, 1987. Engineering Analysis--Reliable Plating and
Polishing Company.
13. Niehaus Fume Separators. Product Information Brochure.
Niehaus Brothers, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana, pp. 2-4.
C-127
-------
APPENDIX D.
EMISSION MEASUREMENT AND CONTINUOUS MONITORING
-------
APPENDIX D - EMISSION MEASUREMENT AND CONTINUOUS MONITORING
D.I EMISSION MEASUREMENT METHODS
During the standard support study for hexavalent chromium emissions from
hard and decorative chromium electroplating facilities, the Emission Measurement
Branch conducted emission tests at twelve facilities. Tests were performed on
inlet and outlet locations of packed bed scrubbers and chevron blade or mesh pad
demisters. One test determined the efficiency of a fume suppressant.
The sampling collection method uses a modified EPA Method 5 train which is
also referred to in test reports as a Modified Method 13-B train. Developmental
work on this train showed that more accurate results could be obtained by
eliminating the filter from the train since recovery of the filter increased the
difficulty of sample recovery and chromic acid could also be trapped in the
filter frit and not recovered at all. Water in the impingers was replaced with
0.1 normal sodium hydroxide to stabilize the hexavalent chromium content of the
samples.
Samples to be analyzed for hexavalent and total chromium were obtained as
much as possible in accordance with EPA Method 5 (40 CFR Part 60 - Appendix A)
with the modifications made to the sampling collection method mentioned above.
Method 5, which also requires the use of Methods 1 through 4, provides detailed
procedures, equipment criteria, and other considerations necessary to obtain
accurate and representative emission samples.
After collection, the samples were analyzed for hexavalent and total
chromium (total chromium is the sum of hexavalent chromium plus other chromium)..
Concentrations of hexavalent chromium were determined using spectrophotometric
analysis while total chromium was determined using Inductively Coupled Argon
Plasmography (ICAP). All samples were analyzed for hexavalent chromium; however,
not all samples were analyzed for total chromium since it was necessary to reduce
source testing expenses.
At the present time, sample analysis has been performed in accordance with
the tentative method "Determination of Hexavalent Chromium from Decorative and
hard Chrome Electroplating (December 13, 1989)," and a draft method: "EPA
protocol for Emission Sampling for both Hexavalent and Total Chromium (February
22, 1985)."
One problem that has occurred in most of the facilities tested is the inlet
sampling location. Only rarely did the inlet meet the criteria for port location
set forth in Method 1. Control devices are usually located as close to the
plating tank as possible meaning that there is an insufficient length of straight
duct work for sampling as specified in Reference Method 1. In such cases, the
choice made is whether to sample at an improper location, or not to sample at
all. In this test series, all inlets were sampled although few inlet locations
were acceptable relative to Method 1. Efficiencies calculated from these
sampling locations may not truly reflect the efficiency of the control device.
Visual observations through ports located close to the plating tank revealed
large globules of chromic acid entrained in the stack gas. These globules,
D-l
-------
directly striking the nozzle opening will bias inlet emissions high. In one
instance, a control device was sampled with the inlet location close to the
plating tank, and the efficiency was calculated. An identical control unit was
sampled with the inlet location properly located and the efficiency of the
control device dropped one percent. One scrubber that showed an extremely high
efficiency also had an improperly located inlet and many large droplets of
chromic acid in the gas stream.
Particle size samples were obtained on four tests and all size distribution
tests were performed in accordance with procedures detailed in the equipment
manufacturer's manual, and through consultation with the manufacturer. All but
one of the tests used button hook nozzles on the impactors. While button hook
nozzles are effective on dry particulate sources, when used on liquid sources
there is a tendency for the larger particles to adhere to the curved walls of the
nozzle and never reach the impactor stages. The observed distribution of the
particles will appear to be smaller than the true distribution. A straight
nozzle should be used and the impactor stages should be at right angles to the
flow of the duct when the sample is taken. This will allow all particles to
enter the impactor.
When analyzing an impactor catch, a gravimetric analysis will be biased by
the evaporation of water from the chromic acid; thus, a chemical analysis must
be made to ensure the greatest degree of accuracy. The Consolidated Engravers
Corporation report (EMB 87-CEP-9) is the only report containing particle size
data where a straight nozzle was used on the impactor, and both gravimetric and
chemical analyses were made.
There are two test reports of electroplating facilities that do not provide
accurate data on chromium emissions. They are the C. S. Ohm Report (85-CHM-10)
and the Carolina Platers Report (85-CHM-ll). Data from the C. S. Ohm report are
suspect since some of the test runs gave higher numbers at the outlet than at the
inlet. Emissions at the facility were controlled with a fume suppressant and a
scrubber that was located on the roof of the building. In the winter, the
scrubber water was cut off to prevent freezing, leaving the fume suppressant as
the only means of emission control. The reason for higher outlet emissions may
never be known. At the Carolina Platers facility, cyclonic flow existed at the
outlet and the sampling method used at this location was incorrect. At the
inlet, a single horizontal traverse was used in lieu of both a horizontal and a
vertical traverse. While this technique seemed suitable at the time, sampling
of other plating facilities revealed that chromic acid mist at inlet sources is
not uniformly distributed across the duct. For these reasons, data from the
Carolina Platers test do not reflect the true emissions from the source.
Although the emission rates from the Carolina Platers report are
indeterminate, it is interesting to note that the percent of total chromium in
samples collected was noticeably higher at this location than at other facilities
tested. At the time of this test, the plating tank hooding used to collect
chromic acid mist was made of steel. The hooding was later replaced with plastic.
A possible explanation for the high total chromium values is that there is a
reaction between the steel hooding and the chromic acid, and conversion from
hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium occurs. This possibility is also
indicated in an experiment performed by the Source Methods Standardization Branch
D-2
-------
of the Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory. In this
experiment, a weak solution of chromium acid was prepared and the concentration
determined. The solution was then split and placed into two containers. A
Swagelock fitting was placed into one of the containers. As time passed,
subsequent analyses showed a decrease in hexavalent chromium in the container
with the fitting while the other container showed no decrease at all.
During the early part of the chromium project, it was determined that the
minute quantities of chromium found in the stainless steel nozzles would not
create a high bias in the test data, but a reaction between the stainless nozzle
and chromic acid was not considered. If metals such as steel or stainless steel
cause hexavalent chromium to convert to trivalent chromium, then it is possible
that samples collected with stainless nozzles may be biased low. This may also
be the reason that the constant sampling rate train (occasionally called the
screening train) had slightly higher emission rate and concentrations than the
isokinetic train. The constant sampling rate train used a glass nozzle while the
isokinetic train used a stainless nozzle.
D.2 MONITORING SYSTEMS AND DEVICES
Currently, there -are no continuous monitoring systems available for the
determination of chromium emissions from plating operations. The fine mist
emitted from the process is not visible to the naked eye at outlet locations, and
prohibits the use of continuous monitors or visible emission observers as a moans
of determining compliance.
At the beginning of the chromium study, the Emission Measurement Branch
worked on a screening technique that would use inexpensive and readily available
components to determine hexavalent chromium emission to within plus or minus 50
percent accuracy. If successful, this method was to be used as an inexpensive
way to determine if conventional isokinetic testing would be required.
Some of the techniques tried were detector tubes, midget impingers, short
pieces of teflon tubing, short pieces of tubing followed by cassette filters, and
traversing the duct with the cassette filter/tubing combination while sampling
with uniform sample times. These devices were only partially successful, always
producing concentration and mass emission " rates lower than those of the
isokinetic train. Not one was adequate as a screening technique.
Successive test work showed that a screening technique would be difficult
to develop due to the inconsistent distribution of chromic acid mist particles
in the stack gas. The two primary areas of chromic acid mist generation in the
plating tank are the anode and cathode. In a horizontal plating tank, the length
of hooding used to capture these emissions extends along the entire length of the
plating tank. ambient air pulled into the hooding will have the highest
concentration of chromic acid mist where it enters the hooding at the point
closest to the anode or cathode. With only the natural mixing effect of the
ductwork, the exhaust gases are not uniform in concentration of chromic acid
mist, and overall emission rates determined from single point sampling are
inaccurate.
D-3
-------
Although early efforts in the program did not produce a successful screening
technique, they did lead to an alternate sampling method that is presently being
considered as one of two ways to determine hexavalent chromium emissions from
decorative and hard chromium electroplaters. The method uses proportional
sampling, inexpensive components, and is simple enough that it can be fabricated
and used by plant personnel. The method is described in Section D.3.
D.3 COMPLIANCE TEST METHODS
Consistent with the data base upon which standards have been established,
the recommended test method for chromium emissions has been a modified Method 5
sampling train (also referred to as a modified 13-B train or simply a 13-B
train). The train is modified by eliminating the filter in the train and
charging the impingers with 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide rather than water.
Method 5 is described in Appendix A, Title 40, Part 60 in the Code of Federal
Regulations. In order to sample for chromium emissions, Methods 1, 2, and 4 must
also be used.
Sampling costs for performing a test consisting of three modified Method 5
runs (an uncontrolled plating operation for example) with analysis for hexavalent
chromium are approximately 54,200 plus travel expenses for two people. Inlet and
outlet tests for a control device cost $8,400 plus travel for four people.
The Emission Measurement Branch has developed a simplified and low cost
alternate sampling train that can be used to determine chromium emissions from
electroplating and anodizing facilities. The train can be built and operated by
plant personnel and obtaining a sample requires only half the personnel of a
standard isokinetic train. The cost of building the apparatus is slightly over
S500.00 which is one tenth the cost of a standard train, and using plant
personnel to collect the samples would cost only $350.00 as compared to $3,500
to $5,000 for samples collected by a consultant using a conventional train.
While the standard isokinetic train (Modified Method 5) samples by varying the
sample rate at each point, the simplified train samples at a constant rate and
the sample time is varied in order to obtain a proportional sample. Errors
resulting from frequent adjustment of the sample rate are eliminated. Since the
simplified train is smaller, less reagent is required for sample recovery, and
the possibility of not recovering all of tfte sample is greatly reduced. The
more concentrated sample is also easier to analyze.
A cost comparison of the alternate sampling method and the modified Method
5 follows:
0-4
-------
ALTERNATE
METHOD
MODIFIED
METHOD 5
Costs to build the train
(parts and labor)
Plant personnel, 3 runs
(1 person, $10/hr)
Cost of analysis, 3 runs
Total
Cost to build equipment
(parts and labor)
Plant personnel, 3 runs
(2 people, $10/hr ea.-)
Cost of analysis, 3 runs
Total costs
*plus travel
$800
150
150
$1,100
Inlet and Outlet Tests
$1,300
300
300
$1,900
$4,200*
$8,400
-------
ATTACHMENT 1.
METHOD _ - DETERMINATION OF HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
EMISSIONS FROM DECORATIVE AND HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING
AND CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING OPERATIONS
D-6
-------
Method _ - Determination of Hexavalent Chromium
Emissions from Decorative and Hard Chromium Electroplating
and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to the determination of
hexavalent chromium (CO in emissions from decorative and hard chromium
electroplating and chromic acid anodizing operations.
1.2 Principle. Emissions are collected from the source by use of
Method 5 (Appendix A, 40 CFR Part 60), with the filter omitted. The first
and second impingers are charged with 0.1N sodium hydroxide. The
collected samples remain in an alkaline solution until analysis, and are
analyzed for CR**) by the diphenylcarbazide colorimetric method.
2. Range. Sensitivity. Precision, and Interferences
2.1 Range. A straight line response curve can be obtained in the
range 5 Cr*'/100 ml to 100 ug Cr*6/100 ml. For a minimum analytical
accuracy of +10 percent, the lower limit of the range is 10 ug/100 ml.
The upper limit can be extended by appropriate dilution.
2.2 Sensitivity. A minimum detection limit of 1 ug Cr'VlOO ml has
been observed.
2.3 Precision. To be determined.
2.4 Interference. Molybdenum, mercury and vanadium react wHh
diphenylcarbazide to form a color; however, approximately 20 mg of these
elements can be present in a sample without creating a problem. Iron
produces a yellow color, but this effect is not measured photometrically
at 540 nm.
D-7
-------
APPARATUS
3.1 Sampling Train. Same as Method 5, Section 2.1, but omit
filter.
3.2 Sample Recovery. Same as Method 5, Section 2.2, but use
0.1N NaOH in place of acetone.
3.3 Analysis. The following equipment is needed.
3.3.1 Beakers. Borosilicate, 250-ml, with watchglass covers.
3.3.2 Volumetric Flasks. 100-ml and other appropriate volumes.
3.3.3 Pipettes. Assorted sizes, as needed.
3.3.4 Spectrophotometer. To measure absorbance at 540 nm.
4. Reagents
Unless otherwise indicated, all reagents shall conform to the
specifications established by the Committee on Analytical Reagents of the
American Chemical Society. Where such specifications are not available,
use the best available grade.
4.1 Sampling.
4.1.1 0.1N NaOH.
4.2 Sample Recovery.
4.2.2 0.1N NaOH.
4.3 Analysis. The following reagents are required.
4.3.1 Water. Deionized distilled, meeting American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications for type 2
reagent - ASTM Test Method D 1193-77 (incorporated by
reference - see s61.18).
D-8
-------
4.3.2 Potassium Dichromate Stock Solution. Dissolve 141.4 mg of
analytical reagent grade K,Cr,0, in water, and dilute to 1
liter (1 ml = 50 ug Cr*6).
4.3.3 Potassium Dichromate Standard Solution. Dilute 10.00 ml
K£r?07 stock solution to 100 ml (1 ml = 5 ug Cr*6) witi
water.
4.3.4 Sulfuric Acid, 10 Percent (v/v). Dilute 10 ml H2SO, to 103
ml in water.
4.3.5 Diphenylcarbazide Solution. Dissolve 250 mg of 1, 5-
diphenylcarbizide in 50 ml acetone. Store in a brown
bottle. Discard when the solution becomes discolored.
5: Procedure
5.1 Sampling. Same as Method 5, Section 4.1, except omit the
filter and filter holder, and place 100 ml of 0.1N NaOH in
each of the first two impingers.
5.2 Sample Recovery. Measure the volume and place all liquid
in the first, second, and third impingers in a labelled
sample container (Container Number 1). Use 200 ml of 0.1N
NaOH to rinse the probe, three impingers, and connecting
glassware. Place this wash in the same container. Place
the silica gel from the fourth impinger in Container Number
3.
5.3 Preservation. Analyze all samples within of
collection.
5.4 Reagent Blank Preparation. Place 400 ml of 0.1N NaOH in
a labelled sample container (Container Number 2).
D-9
-------
1.9-Z.S C«
(0.7S.I ,«.)
1.6 ca (0.7S-1
THERMOCOUPLE
PROBE
PITOT TUBE
S-TTPf
PJT07 TUBi '
ORIFJCt .,
HANOHr7rR «-!r
DRY TEST
MITE*
AIR TIGHT
fWP
1KPJKGER CONTEXTS
1. 100 •! 0.1 N IUOH
2. 100 «1 0.1 N IUOH
3. 100 Ml 0.1 N
4. 200 9 SILICA
UNI
Figure D-l. Hexavalent/total Cr sampling train
D-10
-------
5.5 Silica Gel Weighing. Weigh the spent silica gel (Container
Number 3) or silica gel plus impinger to the nearest O.i>
g using a balance. This step may be conducted in the
field.
5.6 Analysis.
5.6.1 Color Development and Measurement. After stirring the
sample in Container Number 1, transfer a 50-ml or smaller-
measured aliquot to a 100 ml volumetric flask and add
sufficient water to bring the volume to approximately 80
ml. -Adjust the pH to 2 ± 0.5 with 10 percent H2SO,, add 2.0
ml of diphenylcarbazide solution, and dilute to volume with
water. Allow the solution to stand about 10 minutes for
color development. For each set of samples analyzed, treat.
an identical aliquot of reagent blank solution from
Container Number 2 in the same way. Transfer a portion of
the sample to a 1-cm absorption cell, and measure the
absorbance at the optimum wavelength (Section 6.2.1).
Measure and subtract the reagent blank absorbance reading,
if any, to obtain a net reading. If the absorbance of the;
sample exceeds the absorbance of the 100 ug Cr*6 standard
as determined in Section 6.2.2, dilute the sample and the
reagent blank with equal volumes of water.
5.6.2 Check for Matrix Effects on the Cr*6 Results. Since the
analysis for Cr*6 by colorimetry is sensitive to the*
chemical composition of the sample (matrix effects), the1
D-ll
-------
analyst shall check at least one sample from each source
using the method of additions as follows:
Obtain two equal volume aliquots of the same sample solution.
The aliquots should each contain between 30 and 50 ug of Cr'6. Now
treat both the spiked and unspiked sample aliquots as described in
Section 5.6.1.
Next, calculate the Cr*6 mass Cs, in ug in the aliquot of the
unspiked sample solution by using the following equation:
Cs = Ca, —
-•- AS
where:
C, = Cr*e in the standard solution, ug.
As = Absorbance of the unspiked sample solution.
A, = Absorbance of the spiked sample solution.
Volume corrections will not be required since the solutions as
analyzed have been made to the same final volume. If the results of
the method of additions procedure used on the single source sample
do not agree to within 10 percent of the value obtained by the
routine spectrophotometric analysis, then reanalyze all samples from
the source using this method of additions procedure.
6. Calibration •
6.1 Sampling Train. Perform all the calibrations described in
Method 5, Section 5.
*
6.2 Spectrophotometer Calibration.
6.2.1 Optimum Wavelength Determination. Cal ibrate the wavelength
D-12
-------
scale of the spectrophotometer every 6 months. The
calibration may be accomplished by using an energy source
with an intense line emission such as a mercury lamp, or
by using a series of glass filters spanning the measuring
range of the spectrophotometer. Calibration materials are
available commercially and from the National Bureau of
Standards. Specific details on the use of such materials
are normally supplied by the vendor; general information
about calibration techniques can be obtained from genereil
reference books on analytical chemistry. The wavelength
scale of the spectrophotometer shall read correctly with
±5 nm at all calibration points; otherwise, repair and
recalibrate the spectrophotometer. Once the wavelength
scale of the spectrophotometer is in proper calibration,
use 540 nm as the optimum wavelength for the measurement
of the absorbance of the standards and samples.
Alternatively, a scanning procedure may be employed to determine
the proper measuring wavelength. If the instrument is a double-beam
spectrophotometer, scan the spectrum'between 530 and 550 nm using the
50 ug CR- standard solution (Section 4.3.4) in the sample cell and
a blank solution in the reference cell. If a peak does not occur,
the spectrophotometer is malfunctioning. When a peak is obtained
within the 530 to 550 nm range, record and use the wavelength at
which this peak occurs as the optimum wavelength for the measurement
1*
of absorbance of both the standards and the samples. For single-beam
spectrophotometer, follow the scanning procedure described above,
0-13
-------
except scan the blank and standard solutions separately. For this
instrument, the optimum wavelength is the wavelength at which the
maximum difference in absorbance between the standard and the blank
occurs.
6.2.2 Spectrophotometer Calibration. Alternative calibration
procedures are allowed, provided acceptable accuracy and precision
can be demonstrated. Add 0.0 ml, 1 ml , 2 ml , 5 ml , 10 ml , 15 ml, and
20 ml of the working standard solution (1 ml = 5 ug Cr*6) to a series
of seven 100-ml volumetric flasks. Dilute each to mark with water.
Analyze these calibration standards as in Section 5.6.1. Repeat this
calibration procedure on each day that samples are analyzed.
Calculate the Spectrophotometer calibration factor Kc as follows:
A.2A2 +5A, + 10A4 + 15 A; +2045
where :
Kc = Calibration factor.
Aj = Absorbance of the 5 ug Cr*/100 ml standard.
A2 = Absorbance of the 10 ug Cr**/100 ml standard.
A3 = Absorbance of the 25 ug Cr*YlOO ml standard.
A, = Absorbance of the 50 ug Cr^/100 ml standard.
A5 = Absorbance of the 75 ug Cr*VlOO ml standard.
A6 = Absorbance of the 100 ug Cr**/100 ml standard.
6.2.2.1 Spectrophotometer Calibration Quality Control. Multiply the
absorbance value obtained for eacn standard by the Kc factor
(Teast squares slope) to determine the distance each calibration
D-14
-------
point lies from the theoretical calibration line. These
calculated concentration values shall not differ from the actual
concentrations (i.e., 5, 10, 25, 50, 75, and 100 ug Cr"*/100 ml)
by more than percent (to be determined) for five of the six
standards.
7. Emission Calculations
Carry out the calculations, retaining at least one extra decimal
figure beyond that of the acquired data. Round off figures after final
calculations.
7.1 Total Cr"6 in Sample. Calculate m, the total ug Cr"6 in each
sample, as follows:
m-
where:
Vml = Volume in ml of total sample.
A = Absorbance of sample.
F * Dilution factor (required only if sample dilution was needed
to reduce the absorbance into the range of calibration).
V, = Volume in ml of aliquot analyzed.
7.2 Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature and Average Orifice Pressure
Drop. Same as Method 5, Section 6.2.
7.3 Dry Gas Volume, Volume of Water Vapor, Moisture Content. Same
as Method 5, Sections 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5, respectively.
D-15
-------
7.4 Cr*6 Emission Concentration. Calculate cs (g/dscm), the Cr"6
concentration in the stack gas, dry basis, corrected to standard
conditions, as follows:
cs=(lQ-6g/ug) [m/Vm(std)]
7.5 Isokinetic Variation, Acceptable Results. Same as Method 5,
Sections 6.11 and 6.12, respectively.
D-16
-------
ATTACHMENT 2.
EMTIC CONDITIONAL TEST METHOD
DETERMINATION OF CHROMIUM EMISSIONS FROM CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATERS
D-17
-------
EMISSION MEASUREMENT TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER
CONDITIONAL TEST METHOD
Determination of Chromium Emissions from Chromium Electroplaters
1. APPLICABILITY AND PRINCIPLE
1.1 Applicability. This method is used to determine the concentration of
chromium emissions from chromium electroplaters and anodizing operations using
a chromic acid bath. If correctly applied, the results will be as accurate as
those obtained by a modified Method 5 train.
1.1.1 Method Requirements. This method requires ambient moisture, air and
temperature. Particle size must be less than 10 micrometers in diameter. The
probe is not heated.
1.1.2 Vacuum. A minimum vacuum of 15 in. Hg or 0.47 atmosphere between the
critical orifice and pump is required to maintain critical flow.
1.2 Principle. The chromium emissions are collected in a probe and impinger at
a constant sampling rate determined by a critical orifice. The concentration is
determined by wet chemistry and visible spectrophotometry.
2. APPARATUS
Note: Mention of trade names or specific products does not constitute
endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
2.1 Sampling Train. A schematic of the sampling train is shown in Figure 1.
The components of the train are available commercially but some fabrication and
assembly are required.
2.1.1 Probe Nozzle/Liner and Sheath. Approximately 1/4" ID glass or rigid
plastic tubing with a short 90 degree bend to form the nozzle/liner assembly.
Grind a slight taper on the nozzle end before making the bend. Select tubing of
sufficient length to collect a sample fronfthe stack. Use a piece of larger
diameter rigid tubing (metal or plastic) to form a sheath that encases the
nozzle/liner from the right angle bend of the nozzle/liner to the end of the
nozzle/liner.
2.1.2 S-Type P1tot. Velocity probe as specified in Method 2.
2.1.3 Sample Line. Thick wall flexible "Tygon" tubing about 1/4" to 3/8" ID to
connect the train components. A combination of rigid plastic tubing and thin
wall flexible tubing may be used as long as neither tubing collapses when leak
checking the train. Metal tubing cannot be used.
Prepared by Frank R. Clay, Emission Measurement Branch EMTIC CTM-006
Technical Support Division, OAQPS, EPA November 8, 1990
D-18
-------
EMTIC CTM-006 EMTIC CONDITIONAL TEST METHOD
2.1.4 Impinger. One quart capacity "Mason" glass jar with vacuum seal lid.
Install leak tight inlet and outlet tubes for assembly with train. The tubes may
be made of approximately 1/4"ID glass or rigid plastic. Size the inlet tube so
that the lower end is about 1/4" above the bottom of the jar when assembled.
Seal the bottom end of the tube and provide 4 holes 1/8" in diameter in the side
of the tubing as close to the bottom of the "Mason" jar as possible. Two
impingers are required, one for the collecting reagent and one for the drying
agent. Locate outlet tube end about 1/2 " beneath the bottom of the lid.
2.1.5 Manometer. Inclined, to read water column to 1/100 inch for the first
inch and 1/10 inch thereafter. Range 0-6 inches.
2.1.6 Orifice Meter. Small diameter, approximately 1/8", brass tubing sealed
inside larger diameter, approximately 3/8 , brass tubing to serve as a critical
orifice giving a constant sample flow of about 0.75 cfm.
2.1.7 Connecting Hardware. Standard pipe and fittings, 1/4" or 1/8", to install
vacuum pump and dry gas meter in train.
2.1.8 Pump Oiler. Glass oil reservoir with wick mounted at pump inlet to
lubricate pump vanes.
2.1.9 Vacuum Pump. "Gast" sliding vane mechanical pump suitable to deliver a
minimum of 26 in. Hg vacuum and 2.0 cfm.
2.1.10 Dry Gas Meter. Residential 175 cubic feet per hour (CFH) capacity dry
gas meter with thermometer installed to monitor meter temperature.
2.2 Sample Recovery.
2.2.1 Hash Bottles. Glass or inert plastic, 1000 ml, with spray tube.
2.2.3 Sample Container. The first "Mason" jar is the sample container.
2.3 Analysis.
2.3.1 Beakers. Glass, 250 ml, with watchglass covers.
2.3.2 Volumetric Flasks. Glass, 25, 100, and 1000 ml.
2.3.3 Hot Plate - Stlrrer. 120° to 400°C, with inert stir bar.
2.3.4 Pipettes. Glass, volumetric type, assorted sizes as needed.
2.3.5 Spectrophotometer. To measure visible absorbance at 540
nanometers, with sample and reference cuvettes.
D-19
-------
EMTIC CTM-006 EMTIC CONDITIONAL TEST METHOD
3. REAGENTS
3.1 Sampling and Sample Recovery.
3.1.1 Water. Oeionlzed distilled.
3.1.2 Sodium Hydroxide Solution. 0.1 N. Dissolve 4.00 g of sodium hydroxide
(NaOH) in reagent water and dilute to 1 liter.
3.1.3 Sulfuric Acid. 0.5 N. Add 14.0 ml of concentrated sulfuric acid (H2SOJ
to reagent water in a 1 liter flask, dilute to mark.
3.1.4 Sulfuric Acid. 6 N. Add 167.0 ml of concentrated sulfuric acid (H2SOJ
to reagent water in a 1 liter flask, dilute to mark.
3.1.5 Potassium Dichromate Stock Solution. Dissolve 141.4 mg of analytical
reagent grade K2Cr207 in reagent water and dilute to 1 liter (50 ng CR*6/ml)-
3.1.6 Potassium Chromate Standard Solution. Dilute stock K2CR04 solution 1:10
with reagent water (5/jg Cr*6/ml)•
3.1.7 Diphenylcarbazide Solution. Dissolve 250 mg 1,5-diphenylcarbazide in 50
ml of reagent acetone. Store in amber bottle; discard when solution becomes
discolored.
4. PROCEDURE
4.1 Sampling.
4.1.1 Pretest Preparation.
4.1.1.1 Port Location. Locate ports as specified in Section 2 of Method 1.
Use a total of 24 sampling points for round ducts and 24 or 25 points for
rectangular ducts. Mark the pitot and sampling probe with thin strips of tape
to permit velocity and sample traversing.
4.1.1.2 Velocity Traverse. Perform a velocity traverse before obtaining
samples. If testing occurs over several days, perform the traverse at the
beginning of each each day. At the end of the test effort, perform a final
traverse. Perform traverses as specified in Section 3 of Method 2, but record
the Ap (velocity head) values only. Check the stack temperature before and after
recording the Ap values and use the average of the two temperatures for the stack
temperature. Enter the Ap values for each point. Check for cyclonic flow during
the first traverse to verify that cyclonic flow does not exist, or if cyclonic
flow does exist, make sure that the absolute average angle of misalignment does
not exceed 20 degrees. If the average angle of misalignment exceeds 20 degrees
at an outlet location, install straightening vanes to eliminate the cyclonic
flow. If it is necessary to test the inlet location and cyclonic flow does
exist, it may not be possible to install straightening vanes.
D-20
-------
EMTIC CTM-006 EMTIC CONDITIONAL TEST METHOD
In this case, a variation of the alignment method must be used. This must be
approved by the Administrator.
4.1.1.3 Point Sampling Tiroes. Since the sampling rate of the train is constant,
it is necessary to calculate specific sampling times for each point in orcer to
obtain a proportional sample. If all sampling can be completed in a single day,
it is necessary to calculate the point times only once. If sampling occurs over
several days, calculate the point sample times for each day using velocity
traverse data obtained earlier in the day.
Determine the average of the Ap values obtained during the velocity
traverse. Calculate the sampling times for each point using the equation:
Minutes at point = Point Ap x 5 minutes Eq. 1
\ Average Ap
Convert decimal parts' of minutes to seconds.
4.1.1.4 Gas Molecular Height. It is not necessary to determine the stack gas
molecular weight by Method 3. Use 28.95 for the dry molecular weight of air.
4.1.1.5 Gas Moisture Content. Use the approximation method specified in Section
3 of Method 4 to determine moisture content. Use a wet bulb-dry bulb
psychrometer, a relative humidity indicator, or call the local weather bureau.
4.1.1.6 Preparation of Sampling Train. Assemble the sampling train as shown in
Figure 1. Secure the nozzle-liner assembly to the sheath to prevent slipping
when sampling. Put 250 ml of 0.1 N sodium hydroxide solution into the first
impinger. Put silica gel into the second impinger until the impinger is half
full. Place both impingers into an ice bath and check to ensure that the lids
are tight.
V
4.1.1.7 Train Leak Check Procedure. Before the run, wait until the ic<> has
cooled the impingers. Next, seal the nozzle and turn on the pump. Observe any
leak rate on the dry gas meter. The leak rate should not exceed 0.02 cfm.
4.1.2 Sampling Train Operation.
4.1.2.1 Record all pertinent process and sampling data on the data sheet
(see Figure 3). Ensure that the process operation is suitable for sample
collection.
4.1.2.2 Place the probe/nozzle into the duct at point 1 and turn on the pump.
Sample for the number of minutes and seconds previously determined
D-21
-------
D)
_C
n
H
O
"en
"55
0
CO
0)
D)
ca
en
CO
X
CO
0)
o
k.
0)
o
c
•^
|Q
C
"o.
oo
I
a
(D
cn
-------
Plant
Date
Location _
Stack ID _
Operator(s)
Time
Barometric Pressure (in. Hg)
% Moisture
RUN: BEFORE RUN 1
RUN 2
SCHEMATIC OF POINTS
Static Pressure (in. H2O)
or % Relative Humidity
RUNS
AFTER RUN 3
TRAVERSE
POINT
NUMBER
POINT
LOCATION
* CYCLONIC
ANGLE
DEGREES
STACK
TEMP.
(F)
VELOCITY
HEAD
#*> IN H2O)
SAMPLE TIMIE
(MIN/SEC)
v
AVERAGES:
(OPTIONAL^ STACK ACTUAI CFM « FIRST TRAVFR^F HN I Y
Figure D-3. Chromium velocity traverse data.
D-23
-------
Plant
Date
Sampling Site
Total micrograms catch (mCr) _
Avg dry gas meter temp F (Tm)
Meter correction factor (Ym)
Meter volume - actual cu ft (Vm) _
Barometric pressure in. Hg (Pbar)
Start clock time
Stop clock time
Run Number
Operator _
Stack radius (r) _
Avg delta p ^p avg)
Stack temp F (Ts) .
Leak rate before run
Leak rate after run .
Stop meter volume
Start meter volume
REMARKS:
POINT
NO.
i
SAMPLE GAS METER
(MIN/SEC) TEMP (F)
|
i
1
POINT
NO.
SAMPLE
(MIN/SEC)
GAS METER
TEMP (F)
m Cr (Tm + 460) 2 / A p avg (Ts + 46
r.n — v ' KVi/ur - tr.n\ n nr>rn ROT r /
499.8 (Ym) (Vm) (Pbar)
Mg/Cubic Meter (Cs)
Pbar (28.73)
(Optional) Kg/Hr
Figure D-4. Chromium constant sampling rate field data.
D-24
-------
EMTIC CTM-006 EMTIC CONDITIONAL TEST METHOD
for that point. Sample all points on the traverse in this manner. Keep ice
around the impingers during the run. Complete the traverse and turn off the
pump. Move to the next sampling port and repeat. Record the final dry gas imeter
reading.
4.1.2.3 Post Test Leak Check. Remove the probe assembly and flexible tubing
from the first impinger. Do not cover the nozzle. Take the probe assembly and
flexible tubing to the sample recovery area. Seal the inlet tube of the first
impinger and turn on the pump. Observe any leak rate on the dry gas meter. If
the leak rate exceeds 0.02 cfm, reject the run. If the run is acceptable, take
the remainder of the train to the sample recovery area.
4.2 Sample Recovery.
4.2.1 After the train has been moved to the sample recovery area, disconnect the
tubing that joins the first impinger with the second.
4.2.2 The first impinger jar is also used for the sample collection jar.
Unscrew the lid from the impinger jar. Lift the assembly almost out of the jar,
and using the wash bottle, rinse the outside of the impinger tip that was
immersed in the impinger jar. Rinse the inside of the tip as well.
4.2.3 Hold the probe and connecting plastic tubing in a vertical position so
that the tubing forms a "U". Using the wash bottle, partially fill the tubing
with 0.1 N NaOH. (Keep a minimum of 100 ml of the 0.1 N NaOH for a blank
analysis). Raise and lower the end of the plastic tubing several times to cause
the NaOH solution to thoroughly contact the major portion of the internal parts
of the assembly. Do not raise the solution level too high or part of the sample
will be lost. Place the nozzle end of the assembly over the mouth of the "Mason"
jar and elevate the plastic tubing so that the solution flows rapidly out of the
nozzle. Perform this procedure three times.
4.2.4 Remove the plastic tubing from the probe. Hold both ends in a vertical
position so that the tubing forms a "U". Partially fill the tubing with
0.1 N NaOH solution. "Rock" the tubing back and forth to move the solution
through the tubing toward the ends, being careful not to overflow the solution.
Place the end of the tubing that was connected to the first impinger over the
opening of the Mason jar and elevate the other end of the tubing, causing the
tubing contents to flow rapidly into the jar. Perform the entire procedure three
times.
4.2.5 Place a piece of "Saran" wrap over the mouth of the impinger jar. Use a
standard lid and band assembly to seal the jar. Label the jar with the sample
number and mark the liquid level to gauge any losses during handling.
4.3 Analysis.
4.3.1 Color Development and Measurement. After checking the sample for any
losses transfer a 50 ml or smaller measured aliquot to a 100 ml volumetric
D-25
-------
EMTIC CTM-006 EMTIC CONDITIONAL TEST METHOD
flask and add water to make about 80 ml. Adjust the pH to 2 ± 0.5 with 6 N
H2SO,. Add 2.0 ml diphenylcarbazide solution to the volumetric flask with the
sample and the sample blank. Dilute to the mark to obtain 100 ml with 0.5 N
H2SO,. Shake to mix and let stand approximately 10 minutes to allow color
development.
Set the wavelength on the spectrophotometer to 540 nm (see Section 6.2.1).
Zero using an aliquot of the 0.0 pg Cr ml standard (see Section 6.2.2} In a
cuvette. Transfer a portion of the sample and the sample blank to another
cuvette and measure the absorbances. Record on an appropriate data sheet (see
Figure 4). The sample blank absorbance Is subtracted from the sample reading In
calculating the mass of Cr In the sample. If the absorbance of the sample
exceeds the absorbance of the 100 ng Cr standard as determined In Section
6.2.2, dilute the sample and the sample blank using equal volumes of a 1:1
mixture of 0.5 N H2S04 and 0.1 N NaOH.
4.3.2 Matrix Effects Check. Since the analysis for Cr* by colorlmetry Is
sensitive to certain chemical compounds in the sample matrix, the analyst shall
check at least one sample froa any source suspected of having nickel in the
emissions using the method of additions as follows:
Obtain two equal volume aliquots of the same sample solution. The aliquots
should each contain between 30 and 50 ng of Cr*6, but may contain less if this
is not possible. Spike one of the aliquots with the same volume aliquot of
standard solution that contains between 30 and 50 tig of CR*6. Prepare and
analyze both the spiked and the unspiked sample aliquots as described in Section
4.3.1.
Calculate the CR*6 mass Cs, in ng in the aliquot of the unspiked sample
solution with the following equation:
As
C, - C8 Eq. 2
At - As
Where:
Ca - Cr*6 in the standard solution, ng.
As * Absorbance of the unspiked sample solution.
At * Absorbance of the spiked sample solution.
Volume corrections will not be required since the solutions as analyzed have
been made to the same final volume. If the results of the method of additions
procedure used on the single source sample do not agree to within 10 percent of
the value obtained by the routine spectrophotometric analysis, then reanalyze all
samples from the source using this method of additions.
5. CALIBRATION
5.1 Dry Gas Meter. Calibrated by manufacturer or as specified in Method 5.
D-26
-------
EMTIC CTM-006 EMTIC CONDITIONAL TEST METHOD
5.2 Spectrophotometer.
5.2.1 Optimum Wavelength Determination. Calibrate the wavelength scale of the
spectrophotometer every 6 months. A scanning procedure may be employed to
determine the proper wavelength. If the instrument is a double-beam
spectrophotometer, scan the spectrum between 530 and 550 nm using a 50 /ig CR
standard solution in the sample cell and the H2S04 sample blank solution in the
reference cell. If a peak does not occur, the spectrophotometer is
malfunctioning and should be repaired. When a peak is obtained within the 530
to 550 nm range, the wavelength at which this peak occurs shall be the optimum
wavelength for the measurement of absorbance of both the standards and the
samples. For a single-beam spectrophotometer, follow the scanning procedure
described above, except that the blank and standard solutions shall be scanned
separately. The optimum wavelength shall be the wavelength at which the maximum
difference in absorbance between the standard and the blank occurs.
5.2.2 Spectrophotometer Calibration. Alternative calibration procedures are
allowed provided acceptable accuracy and precision can be demonstrated. Pipet
0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 ml (1 ml - 5 09 Cr*6) of the working standard solution
into a series of seven 100-ml volumetric flasks. Add 2.0 ml diphenylcarbazide
solution to each and a sufficient amount of a 1:1 mixture of 0.5 N H2S04 and
0.1 N NaOH to bring the volume to 100 ml. These working standards contain 0 to
100 ng Cr*6. Analyze these calibration standards as in Section 4.3.1. This
calibration procedure must be repeated on each day that samples are analyzed.
Prepare or calculate a linear regression plot to the standard masses in jig Cr*
(x-axis) versus absorbance (y-axis). From this curve or equation, determine the
reciprocal of the slope and denote as the calibration factor, Ke. The absolute
value of the correlation coefficient, r, for the regression line should be
greater than 0.999.
6. CALCULATIONS
6.1 Pollutant Concentration. Calculate the concentration (Cs) of hexavalent
chrome in milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (dscm) as follows:
c , * x (T» * 460)
s 499.8 (YJ (VJ (Ptar)
Where:
^ - Total micrograms of Cr in sample.
Tm • Dry gas meter temperature in *F.
Ym - Dry gas meter correction factor.
Vm » Dry gas meter volume in ft3
pbar " Barometric pressure in inches Hg.
D-27
-------
Plant.
.Date of Analysis.
Location
Spectrophotometer.
Sample Number.
Analyst
Wavelength for Analysis
Calibration Factor * Analysis
Std. Mass
ug Cr +6
0.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
75.0
100.0
Absorbance
A
* Calibration Factor (Kc) = Reciprocal of calibration line slope
Kc =
Absolute value of correlation coefficient for the calibration
line must be greater than 0.999
Sample Analysis
Sample
Number
Absorbance
S
Dilution
Factor F
Blank
Asb. B
Micrograms Cr +6
in Sample Ma
"M = Kc (S - B) F
Figure D-5. Chromium analytical data.
D-28
-------
EMTIC CTM-006 EMTIC CONDITIONAL TEST METHOD
6.1.1 (Optional) Approximate Mass Emission Rate. Calculate an approximate mass
emission rate In kilograms per hour using the following equation:
o.000x597 . x c. Eg. 4
Where:
r - Radius of stack in inches.
Apave « Average of Ap values.
T8 - Stack temperature in *F.
Pb*r z Barometric pressure in inches Hg.
Cs • Concentration of hexavalent chromium in mg/dscm.
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. F. R. Clay, Impinger Collection Efficiency - Mason Jars vs. Greenburg-
Smith Impingers, Dec. 1989.
2. Robin Segal, Draft Screening Method for Emissions from Chromium Plating
Operations, Entropy Environmentalists, Jan. 1988.
D-29
-------
APPENDIX E.
MODEL PLANT PRODUCTION RATE CALCULATIONS
-------
APPENDIX E.
MODEL PLANT PRODUCTION RATE CALCULATIONS
This appendix contains the calculations used to determine;
the electrochemical equivalent of chromium at a 10 percent
cathode efficiency, and the subsequent model plant production
rate calculations for hard and decorative chromium plating
operations.
E-l
-------
E.I DETERMINATION OF ELECTROCHEMICAL EQUIVALENT
-------
EQUATIONS FOR CALCULATING THE ELECTROCHEMICAL EQUIVALENT FOR
CHROMIUM
Definition: The electrochemical equivalent is defined as the
amount of current required to plate a part with a surface area of
1 square foot with a plate thickness of 1 mil at a cathode
efficiency of 100 percent.
Equation 1: Plate thickness = (weight of chromium)
(density of chromium)(surface area plated)
Faraday's Law: During electrolysis 96,487 coulombs (ampere-
seconds) of electricity reduce and oxidize, respectively, 1 gram-
equivalent of the oxidizing and the reducing agent.
Equation 2: 96,487 ampere-seconds (A-s) are required to deposit
the (metal's atomic weight)/(valence) in grams (use 96,500).
ASSUMPTIONS: GIVEN:
Plate thickness = 1 mil Density of water = 62.43 lb/ft3
Surface area of part = 1 square foot Specific gravity of Cr = 7.1
Cathode efficiency = 100 percent Cr valence = +6
Atomic weight of Cr = 52
By rearranging equation 1,
Weight of chromium = (thickness)(density of Cr)(surface area plated)
Weight of chromium = (0.001 in./12 in./ft) (7.1) (62.43 lb/ft3) (1 ft2)
Weight of chromium = 0.0369 Ib = 16.74 grams
Using equation 2,
96,500 A-s X A-s _
52 grams/+6 ~ 16.74 grams x ~
Converting ampere-seconds to ampere-hours,
186,400 A-s _ 51.8 Ah is required to plate a part with a surface area
3,600 sec/hr of 1 square foot and a plate thickness of 1 mil at a
cathode efficiency of 100 percent.
Correction for cathode efficiency of 10 percent for hexavalent
chromium,
(51.8) (10.0) = 518 ampere-hours required to plate a part with a surface of
1 square foot and a plate thickness of 1 mil at a cathode
efficiency of 10 percent.
E-3
-------
E.2 HARD CHROMIUM PLATING PRODUCTION RATE CALCULATIONS
-------
TABLE E-l. AVERAGE SURFACE AREA-TO-VOLUME RATIOS FOR
HARD CHROMIUM PLATING OPERATIONS TESTED DURING THE EMISSION
TEST PROGRAM
Plant
Tank No. Capacity, ft3
Average surface
area plated, ft2
Surface area-to-volume
ratio, ft2/**3
Steel Meddle
Roll Technology
Greensboro Industrial Platers
Able Machine Company
Average
1
2
4
1
2
3
7
1
1
94
45
43
161
302
486
324
347
532
5.63
4.08
4.64
7.14
11.48
13.81
5.59
18.29
34.74
0.06
0.09
0.11
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.06
E-5
-------
HARD CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL TANKS
Tank No. Dimensions,
1 12,
2 12,
3 25,
4 4.0,
3
4
3
4
1,
•5,
• 0,
• o,
• 0,
w,
6.
6.
6.
10
d (ft)
0
0
0
.0
Capacity,
231
264
413
152
(1,
(1,
(3,
(1,
ft3 (gal)
728)
975)
089)
137)
Surface area plated in each tank calculated by using factor of
0.06 ft2/ft3 from Table E-l:
Tank No.
l
2
3
4
Capacity, ft3
231
264
413
152
Volume factor,
ft2/ft3
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
Surface area
plated, ft2
14.0
16.0
25.0
9.0
Process parameter assumptions:
Plating thickness = l mil
Plating time = 2 hours
Electrochemical equivalent = 518 Ah at 10 percent cathode efficiency
mil-ft2
Ampere-hour requirement for each tank to plate the surface area
values stated above:
Electrochemical
Plating equivalent.
Tank No. thickness, mils Ah/mil -ft
1 1
2 1
3 1
4 1
518
518
518
518
Surface area, ft2
14.0
16.0
25.0
9.0
Ah
7,250
8,290
12,950
4,660
E-6
-------
Current settings for each model tank:
Tank No
1
2
3
4
Model plant
Small model
Ampere-hour
requirements, Ah
7,250
8,290
12,950
4,660
production rates
plant
Plating time, hr
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Current , A
3,625
4,145
6,475
2,330
No. of tanks = 1
Size of tank, (l,w,d), ft = 12, 3.5, 6.0 (Tank 1)
Current setting of tank = 3,625 A
Operating time = 2,000 hr/yr
Percent time electrodes are energized = 70 percent
Ampere-hours/year = (3,625 A) (2,000 hr/yr) (0.70) = 5.0 x 106 Ah/yr
Medium model plant
No. of tanks =
Size of tanks (l,w,d)
Current settings =
Operating time =
ft = 1 at (4.0, 4.0, 10.0) (Tank 4)
2 at (12.0, 4.0, 6.0) (Tank 2)
1 at (25.0, 3.0, 6.0) (Tank 3)
1 at 2,330 A
2 at 4,145 A
1 at 6,475 A
3,500 hr/yr
Percent time electrodes are energized = 70 percent
Ampere-hours/year = [(2,330 A) + (2)(4,145 A) + (6,475 A)]
(3,500 hr/yr)(0.70) = 42.0 x 106 Ah/yr
Large model plant
8
No. of tanks =
Size of tanks (l,w,d), ft = 2 at (4.0, 4.0, 10.0) (Tank 4)
4 at (12.0, 4.0, 6.0) (Tank 2)
2 at (25.0, 3.0, 6.0) (Tank 3)
Current settings =
4 at 4,145 A
2 at 6,475 A
2 at 2,330 A
Operating time = 6,000 hr/yr
Percent time electrodes are energized = 80 percent
Ampere-hours/year = [2(2,330 A) +(4) (4,145 A) + 2(6,475 A)] (6,000 hr/yr) (0.80)
= 164 x 10* Ah/yr
E-7
-------
E.3 DECORATIVE CHROMIUM PLATING PRODUCTION RATE CALCULATIONS
-------
SURFACE AREA-TO-VOLUME RATIO FOR DECORATIVE CHROMIUM PLATING
OPERATIONS
GMC-Delco Test Data
No. of tanks = 1
Size of tank (l,w,d,), ft = (20.0, 12.0, 9.0)
Capacity = 2,040 ft3 (15,260 gallons)
Tank holds = Three racks of bumpers
Rack contains = 8 bumpers
Square footage in tank = (3 racks)(8 bumpers/rack)(8 ft2/! bumper) =
192 ft2
192 ft2 parts „ 0 09 ft2/ft3
2,040 ft3 plating solution
DECORATIVE CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL TANKS
Tank No. Dimensions (1, w, d) , ft Capacity, ft3 (gal)
1 12.0, 3.5, 6.0 231 (1,728)
2 12.0, 6.0, 9.0 612 (4,578)
Surface area plated in each tank calculated by using factor of
0.09 ft2/ft3 from above:
Tank No.
1
2
Capacity, ft3
231
612
Volume factor,
ft2/ft3
0.09
0.09
Surface are»a
plated, ft2
21
55
Process parameter assumptions:
Plate thickness = 0.012 mil
Plating time =3.0 minutes = 0.05 hours
Electrochemical equivalent = 518 ^ at 10 percent cathode efficiency
mil-ft2
E-9
-------
Ampere-hour requirement for each tank to plate the surface area
values stated above:
Plate Electrochemical
thickness, equivalent.
Tank No. mils Ah/mil -ftz
1 0.012 518
2 0.012 518
Surface
area, ft2 Ah
21 130
55 340
Current settings for each model tank:
Tank No
1
2
Model plant
Small model
Ampere-hour
requirement Plating time, hr Current, A
130 0.05 2,600
340 0.05 6,800
croduction rates
plant
No. of tanks = 1
Size of tanks (l,w,d,), ft = (12.0, 3.5, 6.0) (Tank 1)
Current setting of tank = 2,600 A
Operating time = 2,000 hr/yr
Percent time electrodes are energized = 60 percent
Ampere-hours/year = (2,600 A) (2,000 hr/yr) (0.60) = 3.0 x 106 Ah/yr
Medium model plant
No. of tanks = 2
Size of tanks (l,w,d), ft = 2 at (12.0, 3.5, 6.0)
(Tank 1)
Current settings = 2 at 2,600 A
Operating time = 4,000 hr/yr
Percent time electrodes are energized = 60 percent
Ampere-hours/year = (2)(2,600 A)(4,000 hr/yr)(0.60) = 12.0 x 106 Ah/yr
Large model plant
No. of tanks = 5
Size of tanks (l,w,d), ft = 5 at (12.0, 6.0, 9.0)
(Tank 2)
Current settings = 5 at 6,800 A
Operating time = 6,000 hr/yr
Percent time electrodes are energized = 60 percent
Ampere-hours/year = (5) (6,800 A) (6,000 hr/yr) (0.60) = 122 x 106 Ah/yr
E-10
-------
APPENDIX F. DEVELOPMENT OF MODEL PLANT COSTS
-------
APPENDIX F. DEVELOPMENT OF MODEL PLANT COSTS
F.I CHEVRON-BLADE MIST ELIMINATORS AND PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS
This section presents the capital and annualized costs of
chevron-blade mist eliminators and packed-bed scrubbers used to
control chromium emissions from the hard and decorative chromium
electroplating and chromic acid anodizing model plants. Each
model plant is composed of various sized model tanks. The model
tanks are arranged into five control device configurations.
Schematics of these configurations are shown in Chapter 5 of this
document. Table F-l presents the model plant parameters on which
the installed capital and annualized costs are based.
Capital cost estimates for each of five different sizes of
mist eliminators and scrubbers specified in the model plants were
obtained from three control device vendors (designated as
Vendors A, B, and C). 1~3 The vendors also provided operating
parameters for mist eliminators and scrubbers (e.g., fan and
recirculation pump motor horsepower [hp] requirements, water
consumption rates, maintenance hours, and the life expectancy of
control devices and scrubber packing material) that were used to
calculate annualized costs. The cost estimates presented here
are based on Vendor A estimates only, which were the highest cost
estimates obtained from the three vendors. Vendor B provided
installed capital cost estimates for mist eliminators and
scrubbers that ranged from $10,000 to $20,000 lower than those
provided by Vendor A. Annualized cost estimates calculated from
the control device operating parameters provided by Vendor B
ranged from $1,000 to $10,000 lower than the annualized cost
estimates calculated from the control device operating parameters
provided by Vendor A. Capital cost estimates provided by
F-l
-------
Vendor C were incomplete because Vendor C did not provide
installation costs.
All cost data presented here are in November 1988 dollars.
The capital costs originally received from Vendor A were in
October 1986 dollars. These costs were updated to November 1988
dollars by multiplying the costs by the ratio of the Chemical
Engineering (CE) plant indices for October 1986 (319.3) and
November 1988 (347.8).4 Data sources used to calculate capital
and annualized costs of the pollution control techniques are
presented in Table F-2. Cost factors used to calculate
annualized costs are presented in Table F-3.
F.I.I Unit Costs
This section presents the installed capital and annualized
cost estimates for each of the five different sizes of mist
eliminators and scrubbers specified in the model plants.
F.I.1.1 Capital Costs. Tables F-4 and F-5 present capital
costs for chevron-blade mist eliminators with single and double
sets of blades, respectively; and Tables F-6 and F-7 present
capital costs for single and double packed-bed scrubbers,
respectively. Each table presents cost data for each of five
different sizes of control devices specified in the model plants.
The capital costs for mist eliminators and packed-bed
scrubbers include the purchase cost of the control device and
auxiliaries such as exhaust fans, motors, inlet and outlet
transitions, and stack; direct installation costs for electrical
panels and wiring, instrumentation and controls, and piping;
indirect costs for erection, engineering services, contractor
fees, and contingencies; and startup costs. Installation costs
are based on the assumptions that the control device would be
installed on the roof of the plating shop, the roof is 6.1 m
(20 ft) high, and the roof would require no major structural
modifications to support the weight of the control device.
Erection costs include the cost of renting a crane to hoist the
control device onto the roof of the shop. The purchased
equipment cost also includes taxes and freight costs, which are
assumed to be 3 and 5 percent of the base equipment cost, respec-
F-2
-------
tively.5 The startup cost is assumed to be 1 percent of the
purchased equipment cost.5
F.I. 1.2 Annualized Costs. Tables F-8 and F-9 present
annualized costs for chevron-blade mist eliminators with single
and double sets of blades, respectively, and Tables F-10 and P-ll
present annualized costs for single and double packed-bed
scrubbers, respectively. The annualized costs include direct
operating costs such as utilities; operator, supervisor, and
maintenance labor and materials; indirect operating costs such as
overhead, property taxes, insurance and administration; and
capital recovery costs. The annualized costs of packed-bed
scrubbers also includes the cost of scrubber packing replacement
and disposal .
Utility costs include the costs of electricity and water
required to operate mist eliminators and packed-bed scrubbers.
The annual electrical cost attributable to pollution control
results from the additional fan horsepower needed to overcome the
pressure drop added to the ventilation system by the control
device and the horsepower needed to operate the scrubber
recirculation pumps. The incremental fan and recirculation pump
electrical costs were calculated using the following equation:
Electrical cost, $/yr = [( ' kW ) (hp) (t)] [C]
where :
kW = kilowatt;
hp = horsepower of pump motor or incremental horsepower of
fan motor;
t = operating time, hr/yr; and
C = electricity cost, $0.0461 kWh.6
For example, the single packed-bed scrubber that is sized
for an exhaust gas flow rate of 280 actual nr/min (10,000 actual
ft3/min) (Column A in Table F-10) requires an additional 5 hp to
operate the fan, and the scrubber operates 6,000 hr/yr.
F-3
-------
Therefore, the incremental annual electrical cost to operate the
fan is:
, 0.746 kW w w 6,000 hrw $0.0461,
( - " - X5 hPX-^ - X- - > - $1.030/yr.
In addition, the single packed-bed scrubber requires a 1-hp
pump to recirculate the scrubber water. The annual electrical
cost to operate the pump is:
f 0.746 kW x, w 6,000 hrw $0.0461,
Therefore, the total annual electrical cost for the scrubber is
$l,240/yr.
Water consumption costs are associated with the washdown of
mist eliminators and the operation of scrubbers. For the
purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that water for washdown
of mist eliminators is recycled to the process, as is typically
the case. Scrubber water also was assumed to be recirculated for
8 hours of operation, at which time the water in the
recirculation basin is drained to the process and the basin is
replenished with clean water. Water costs were calculated using
the following equations:
(1) Mist eliminators
Water cost, $/yr = [(V) (N) (S) ] [C]
where:
V = volume of washdown water, L (gal) ;
N = number of washdowns per 8 -hour shift;
S = number of 8 -hour shifts per year; and
C = water cost, $0.20/1,000 L ($0.77/1,000 gal).7
(2) Scrubbers
Water cost, $/yr = [(V) (f)+(FR) (60 min/hr) (t) ] [C]
where :
V = recirculation tank volume, L (gal) ;
f = frequency of washdowns, number per year;
FR = makeup water flow rate, L/min (gal/min) ;
N = number of times per year water is replaced (t/8 hr) ;
t = operating time, hr/yr; and
F-4
-------
C = water cost, $0.20/1,000 L ($0.77/1,000 gal).7
For example, for the single packed-bed scrubber used in the
examples above, the recirculation tank volume is 450 L (120 gsil) ;
the makeup water flow rate is 5.7 L/min (1.5 gal/min) ; the
scrubber is operated 6,000 hr/yr; and the scrubber water is
drained to the process and replaced with clean water every
8 hours of operation, or 750 times per year. Therefore, the
annual water cost for this unit is:
[(120 gal) (750)
The total annual cost of utilities for the scrubber is equal
to the sum of the annual electrical and water costs, which is
$l,730/yr.
Scrubber packing material replacement costs were included in
annualized scrubber costs because the life of the packing
material is less than the life of the control device. Vendor A
estimates that most facilities will probably need to replace the
packing material every 10 years. The packing material costs
approximately $600/m3 ($17/ft3) of material.8 Annualized packing
material replacement costs include the replacement cost of the
packing and the transportation and disposal costs associated with
the used packing. The replacement costs of the packing material
were calculated based on the following equation:
Replacement cost, $/yr = [ (v) (c) ] [CRFp]
where :
v = volume of packing required for each control device, m3
(ft3) ;
c = cost of packing material, $620/m3 ($17/ft3)8; and
CRFp = capital recovery factor of 0.1628, based on an
interest rate of 10 percent and a depreciable life of
10 years for the packing.
F-5
-------
The transportation and disposal costs for the packing material
were calculated based on the following equation:
Disposal and transportation cost, $/yr =
[(N) (dc) + (N) (tc)] [CRFp]
where:
N = number of 55-gal drums, V/Vd/ rounded to the nearest
whole number;
V = volume of packing material disposed for each control
device, m3 (ft3) (see Tables F-6 and F-7);
Vd = volume of 55-gal drum, 0.21 m3 (7.35 ft3);
dc = disposal cost, $50.00/drum ,•
tc = transportation cost, $40.00/drum ,• and
CRF_ = capital recovery factor of 0.1628, based on an
interest rate of 10 percent and a depreciable life of
10 years for the packing material.
The annual cost of operating labor is based on the amount of
labor required to operate the control device plus supervision.
The operator labor is based on vendor estimates for labor hours
required per day of operation, and a labor rate of $8.37/hour.1^
It was assumed that 0.25 hour per day of operator labor is
required for chevron-blade mist eliminators, and 0.5 hour per day
of operator labor is required for packed-bed scrubbers. The
operator labor is independent of the control device size and the
number of operating hours per day. The supervisor labor cost is
assumed to be 15 percent of the operator labor cost.5
The annual cost of maintenance labor for each control device
is based on vendor estimates of the maintenance hours required
per 2,000 hours of operation and a maintenance labor rate of
$9.21/hr.10'xl The annual cost of materials is assumed to be
100 percent of the maintenance labor cost.5
Indirect costs include overhead, property taxes, insurance,
and administration. The overhead cost was calculated based on
60 percent of the operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor
F-6
-------
plus any material costs.5 Property taxes, insurance, and
administration were assumed to be 4 percent of the total capital
cost.5
Capital recovery costs, which are the costs of capital
spread over the depreciable life of the control device, were
calculated using the following equation:5
CRC = [TCC] [(i{l + i}n)/({l + i}n - 1)]
where:
CRC = capital recovery cost, $/yr;
TCC = total capital cost, $;
i = annual interest rate, 10 percent; and
n = depreciable life, 20 years.
F.l.2 Model Plant Costs
This section presents the installed capital and annualized
costs of chevron-blade mist eliminators and packed-bed scrubbers
for the hard and decorative chromium plating and chromic acid
anodizing model plants. The model plant costs are representative
of control costs for new sources. The capital costs for
ventilation hoods and ductwork were not included in the capital
costs for control devices because plants must typically install
ventilation hoods and ductwork to comply with occupational health
standards that regulate employee exposure to chromium emissions
in the workplace.
F.I.2.1 Capital Costs. Tables F-12 through F-14 present
the purchased equipment, installation, startup, and total capital
costs of chevron-blade mist eliminators and packed-bed scrubbers
for the hard and decorative chromium plating and chromic acid
anodizing model plants. The capital cost estimates were compiled
from Tables F-4 through F-7 as described below.
Hard Chromium Plating
Small model plant = Column B costs
Medium model plant = Column D costs
Large model plant = 2(Column D) costs
F-7
-------
Decorative Chromium Plating
Small model plant = Column B costs
Medium model plant = 2(Column B) costs
Large model plant » 2(Column C) + Column A costs
Chromic Acid Anodizing
Small model plant = Column B costs
Large model plant = Column E costs
F.I.2.2 Annualized Costs. The annualized costs for the
model plants are presented in Tables F-15 through F-17. The
annualized cost estimates, with the exception of the labor
requirements and indirect costs, were compiled from Tables F-8
through F-ll as described below.
Hard Chromium Plating
Small model plant = Column B^ costs
Medium model plant = Column D.^ costs
Large model plant = 2(Column D2) costs
Decorative Chromium Plating
Small model plant = Column BI costs
Medium model plant = 2(Column B2) costs
Large model plant = 2(Column C) + Column A costs
Chromic Acid Anodizing
Small model plant = Column B-j_ costs
Large model plant = Column E costs
The operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor requirements
for each model plant were calculated based on the assumption that
the labor required to operate and maintain more than one control
device increased the labor requirement by only 30 percent for
each additional control device, instead of increasing the labor
requirement by 100 percent. For example, for the large
decorative chromium plating model plant with chevron-blade mist
eliminators with a single set of blades (which requires a total
of three control devices), the operator and maintenance labor
requirement was calculated as follows:
Operator and maintenance labor, $/yr = ($1,290)(1.6) =
$2,100 instead of ($1,290) (3) = $3,870.
F-8
-------
The material cost, which is based on 100 percent of the
maintenance labor for each control device, was assumed to
increase 100 percent for each additional control device for the
model plants, and can be computed from Tables F-8 through F-li.
The indirect costs for each model plant include overhead,
property taxes, insurance, and administration. The overhead cost
is based on 60 percent of the sum of the operator and maintenance
labor plus the material costs for each model plant. The property
taxes, insurance, and administration are equal to 4 percent of
the total capital cost for each model plant. For example, for
the large decorative chromium plating model plant operating with
chevron-blade mist eliminators with a single set of blades, the
indirect costs were calculated as follows:
Indirect costs, $/yr = 0.60 [ (1.6) ($1,290) + 3($690)]
+ 0.04[2(27,100) + 20,600] = $2,480 + $2,990 - $5,500.
The chromic acid recovery credits are calculated based on
the estimated removal efficiency for chevron-blade mist
eliminators and packed-bed scrubbers and 100 percent recovery of
the chromic acid captured by the control device. The chromic
acid recovery credit is calculated using the following equation:
Chromic acid recovery credit, $/yr = [ER] [Eff] [1.923] [C]
where:
ER = uncontrolled hexavalent chromium emission rate per
plant, kg/yr (Ib/yr);
Eff = efficiency of control device, decimal percent;
1.923 = ratio of chromic acid molecular weight (100) to
hexavalent chromium molecular weight (52); and
C = cost of chromic acid (Cr03) , $3.28/kg ($1.49/lb) .:L2
The critical variables influencing chevron-blade mist
eliminator and packed-bed scrubber annualized costs are the labor
and materials and indirect costs.
F-9
-------
F.2 MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATORS
This section presents the capital and annualized costs of
mesh-pad mist eliminators used to control chromium emissions from
the hard and decorative chromium electroplating and chromic acid
anodizing model plants. Each model plant is composed of various
sizes of model tanks. The model tanks are arranged in six
control device configurations. Schematics of these
configurations are presented in Chapter 5 of this document.
Table F-18 presents the model plant parameters on which the
installed capital and annualized costs are based.
For model tanks that require more than 340 m3/min
(12,000 ft3/min) of ventilation air, two or more mesh-pad mist
eliminators in parallel were used to control emissions from the
plating tanks because mesh-pad mist eliminators are designed to
handle maximum airflows of 340 m3/min (12,000 ft3/min).13
However, the vendor of the control device, Vendor I, indicates
there may be design problems with mesh-pad mist eliminators sized
for flow rates above 230 m3/min (8,000 ft3/min). The
construction of the frame holding the mesh pads on units designed
to handle airflows in excess of 230 m3/min (8,000 ft3/min) will
probably require structural modifications so that the pads will
not be pulled out of the frame. Currently, there are no units in
service that are designed for airflows over approximately
170 m3/min (6,000 ft3/min).
Vendor I provided capital cost estimates and operating
parameters used to calculate annualized cost data for mesh-pad
mist eliminators based on the model plant information presented
above.14~1^ Capital cost estimates and operating parameters were
obtained for four different sizes of mesh-pad mist eliminators
specified in the model plants. Operating parameters provided by
Vendor I include the fan and washdown water pump horsepower
requirements, washdown frequency, water consumption rates,
maintenance and operating hours, and the life expectancy of the
units. All cost data are presented in November 1988 dollars.
Data sources and cost factors used to calculate capital and
F-10
-------
annualized costs of mesh-pad mist eliminators are presented in
Table F-19.
F.2.1 Unit Costs
F.2.1.1 Capital Costs. Table F-20 presents the capital
costs for the four sizes of mesh-pad mist eliminators specified
in the model plants. The capital costs include the purchase cost
of the control device and auxiliaries such as inlet and outlet:
transition zones, exhaust fans and motors, washdown pumps and
motors, and stack; direct installation costs for erection,
electrical panels and wiring, instrumentation and controls, and
piping; and startup costs. Installation costs are based on the
assumptions that the control device would be installed on the
roof of the plating shop, that the roof is 6.1 m (20 ft) high,,
and that the roof would require no major structural modifications
to support the weight of the control device. The purchased
equipment cost also includes taxes and freight costs, which are
assumed to be 3 and 5 percent of the base equipment cost,
respectively.^ The startup cost is assumed to be 1 percent o::
the purchased equipment cost.5
F.2.1.2 Annualized Costs. Table F-21 presents annualized
costs for the four sizes of mesh-pad mist eliminator units
specified in the model plants. The annualized costs include
direct operating costs such as utilities; operator, supervisor,
and maintenance labor and materials; mesh pad replacement;
indirect operating costs such as overhead, property taxes,
insurance and administration; and capital recovery costs.
Utility costs include the costs of electricity and water
required to operate the mesh-pad mist eliminators. The annual
electrical cost results from both the additional horsepower
requirement needed by the fan to overcome the pressure drop added
to the ventilation system by the control device, and the
horsepower needed to operate the washdown water pumps. The
incremental fan electrical costs were calculated based on the
following equation:
Fan electrical cost, $/yr = [(0.746 kW/hp)(hp)(t)][c]
F-ll
-------
where:
kW = kilowatt;
hp = horsepower requirement;
t = operating time, hr/yr; and
c = electrical cost, $0.0461 kWh.6
The washdown water pumps are operated for approximately
5 minutes per 8-hour shift to wash down the pads in the mist
eliminator. The pump electrical costs were calculated based on
the following equation:
Pump electrical cost, $/yr = [(0.746 kW/hp)(hp)(tp)(tcd)][c]
where:
kW = kilowatt;
hp = horsepower requirement;
t = operating time of pump per hour of control device
operation, 0.010 hr/hr;
tccj = operating time of control device, hr/yr; and
c = electrical cost, $0.0461 kWh.6
The total annual electrical cost of the mist eliminator is equal
to the sum of the fan and washdown water pump electrical costs.
Water consumption costs are associated with the washdown of
the mesh-pad mist eliminator. For the purposes of this analysis,
it was assumed that the washdown water is recycled to the
process, as is typically the case. The amount of washdown water
required and the frequency of the washdown was provided by
Vendor I for each size of mesh-pad unit. The water costs for
mesh-pad mist eliminators were calculated using the following
equation:
Water cost, $/yr = [(v)(f)(s)][c]
where:
v = volume of water per washdown, L (gal);
F-12
-------
f = frequency of washdown, No. of times/8-hr shift;
s = number of 8-hr shifts per year, No./yr; and
c = water cost, $0.20/1,000 L ($0.77/1,000 gal).7
Mesh pad replacement costs were included because the
estimated life of the pads is less than the estimated life of the
control device. Vendor I estimates that most facilities will
need to replace the mesh pads every 4 years. The mesh pad
material is estimated to cost approximately $10,600/m3 ($300/ft3)
of material.^ Mesh pad replacement costs include the
replacement cost of the pads and the transportation and disposal
costs associated with the used pads. The annualized replacement
costs of the mesh pads were calculated using the following
equation:
Replacement cost, $/yr = [(v)(c)][CRF ]
where:
v = volume of pad material required for each control
device, m3 (ft3);
c = cost of pad material, $10,600/m3 ($300/ft3)16; and
CRF_ = capital recovery factor of 0.3154, based on an
interest rate of 10 percent and a depreciable life of
4 years for the mesh pads.
The transportation and disposal costs for the mesh pad material
were calculated based on the following equation:
Disposal and transportation cost, $/yr =
[(N) (dc) + (N) (tc)] [CRFp]
where:
N = number of 55-gal drums, V/Vd, rounded up to the
nearest whole number;
V = volume of pad material disposed for each control
device, m3 (ft3) (see Table F-21);
Vd = volume of 55-gal drum, 0.21 m3 (7.35 ft3);
F-13
-------
dc «* disposal cost, $50.00/drum ,•
tc = transportation cost, $40.00/drum9; and
CRF = capital recovery factor of 0.3154, based on an
interest rate of 10 percent and a depreciable life of
4 years for the mesh pads.
The annual cost of operating labor is based on the amount of
labor required to operate the control device plus supervision.
The operator labor is based on vendor estimates for labor hours
required per day of operation, and a labor rate of $8.37/hr.10
The operator labor is independent of both the control device size
and the number of operating hours per day. The supervisor labor
cost is assumed to be 15 percent of the operator labor cost.5
The annual cost of maintenance labor for each control device
is based on vendor estimates of the maintenance hours required
per 2,000 hours of operation, and a maintenance labor rate of
$9.21/hr.10'1:L The maintenance labor is independent of the .
control device size. The annual cost of maintenance materials is
assumed to be 100 percent of the maintenance labor cost.5
Indirect costs include overhead, property taxes, insurance,
and administration. The overhead cost was calculated based on
60 percent of the sum of the operator, supervisor, and
maintenance labor plus any material costs.5 Property taxes,
insurance, and administration were collectively assumed to be
4 percent of the total capital cost.5
Capital recovery costs associated with the mesh-pad mist
eliminator unit(s), which are the costs of capital spread over
the depreciable life of the control device, were calculated using
the following equation:5
CRC « [TCC][(i{l + i}n)/({l + i}n - 1) ]
where:
CRC = capital recovery cost, $/yr;
TCC = total capital cost of control device(s), $;
i = annual interest rate, 10 percent; and
F-14
-------
n = depreciable life, 10 years.16
F.2.2 Model Plant Costs
This section presents the installed capital and annualized
costs of mesh-pad mist eliminators for the hard and decorative
chromium plating and chromic acid anodizing model plants. The
model plant costs are representative of control costs for new
sources. The capital costs for ventilation hoods and ductwork
were not included in the capital costs for control devices
because plants must typically install ventilation hoods and
ductwork to comply with occupational health standards that
regulate employee exposure to chromium emissions in the
workplace. However, additional ductwork is required for mesh-pad
mist eliminator systems, compared to typical ventilation systems.
Typical ventilation systems have multiple tanks connected via
short runs of ductwork that carry large airflows. The mesh-pad
mist eliminator vendor indicated that for airflows greater than
340 m3/min (12,000 ft3/min), the exhaust stream should be split
and directed to multiple, small mesh-pad units. This splitting
of the exhaust stream requires additional ductwork. Therefore,
the cost of additional ductwork is included in the model plant.
capital cost estimates for mesh-pad mist eliminator systems.
F.2.2.1 Capital Costs. Table F-22 presents the purchased
equipment, additional ductwork, installation, startup, and total
capital costs of mesh-pad mist eliminators for the hard and
decorative chromium plating and chromic acid anodizing model
plants. The capital cost estimates, with the exception of the
additional ductwork costs and installation costs, were compiled
from Table F-20 as described below.
Hard Chromium Plating
Small model plant = Column D costs
Medium model plant = Column A + B + 2(Column C) costs
Large model plant = 2[Column A + B + 2(Column C) costs]
Decorative Chromium Plating
Small model plant = Column D costs
Medium model plant = 2(Column D costs)
F-15
-------
Large model plant = 5(Column C costs)
Chromic Acid Anodizing
Small model plant = Column D costs
Large model plant = 4(Column C costs)
The additional ductwork expense for each model plant was
estimated by comparing the total ductwork expense associated with
the ventilation systems specially designed to accommodate
installation of the mesh-pad mist eliminators at each model plant
with the ventilation systems designed based on typical plant
practices. Schematics of these typical systems are shown in
Chapter 5 of the Chromium Electroplating Background Information
Document.
Installation costs for each model plant include the direct
installation costs of each unit and an indirect cost of $7,000
that covers the cost of engineering services, contractors fees,
and contingencies. The mesh-pad mist eliminator vendor provided
the amount of the indirect costs on a per-model-plant basis.
Therefore, model plant installation costs were assumed to be
$7,000 plus the cost of the direct installation of the unit,
calculated as described above for the other capital cost
estimates.
F.2.2.2 Annualized Costs. The annualized costs for the
model plants are presented in Table F-23. The annualized cost
estimates, with the exception of the labor requirements, indirect
costs and chromic acid recovery credits, were compiled from
Table F-21 as described below.
Hard Chromium Plating
Small model plant = Column D.^ costs
Medium model plant = Column AI + BI + 2 (Column C.^) costs
Large model plant = 2[Column A2 + B2 + 2(Column C2) costs]
Decorative Chromium Plating
Small model plant = Column D^^ costs
Medium model plant = 2(Column D2 costs)
Large model plant = 5(Column C2 costs)
Chromic Acid Anodizing
Small model plant = Column D^ costs
F-16
-------
Large model plant = 4(Column C2 costs)
The operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor requirements
for each model plant were calculated based on the assumption that
the labor required to operate and maintain more than one control
device increased the labor requirement by only 30 percent for
each additional control device, instead of increasing the labor
requirement by 100 percent. For example, for the medium hard
chromium plating model plant, which requires a total of four
control devices, the operator and maintenance labor requirement
was calculated as follows:
Operator and maintenance labor, $/yr = 1,240 + 0.3(1,240) +
0.3(1,240) + 0.3(1,240) = ($1,240) (1.9) = $2,400; instead of
($1,240)(4) = $5,960.
The maintenance material cost, which is based on 100 percent
of the maintenance labor for each control device, was assumed to
increase 100 percent for each additional control device for the
model plants and can be computed from Table F-21.
The indirect costs for each model plant include overhead,
property taxes, insurance, and administration. The overhead cost
is based on 60 percent of the sum of the operator, supervisor,
and maintenance labor plus the material costs for each model
plant. The property taxes, insurance, and administration are
equal to 4 percent of the total capital cost for each model
plant. For example, for the medium hard chromium plating model
plant, the indirect costs were calculated as follows:
overhead taxes, ins., adm.
Indirect costs, $/yr = 0 .60 [ (1.9) ($1,240) + 4($640)] •»• [0 .04 ($66,000) ]
= $2,950 + $2,640 = $5,600.
The chromic acid recovery credits are calculated based on
the estimated removal efficiency for mesh-pad mist eliminators
and 100 percent recovery of the chromic acid captured by the
F-17
-------
control device. The chromic acid recovery credit is calculated
using the following equation:
Chromic acid recovery credit, $/yr = [ER] [Eff] [1.923] [C]
where:
ER = uncontrolled hexavalent chromium emission rate per
plant, kg/yr (Ib/yr);
Eff = efficiency of control device, decimal percent;
1.923 = ratio of chromic acid molecular weight (100) to
hexavalent chromium molecular weight (52); and
C = cost of chromic acid (Cr03) , $3.28/kg ($1.49/lb) '.12
The critical variables influencing mesh-pad mist eliminator
annualized costs are the labor and materials, and indirect costs.
F.3 RETROFIT COSTS FOR CHEVRON-BLADE MIST ELIMINATORS, PACKED-
BED SCRUBBERS, AND MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATORS
This section presents the capital and annualized cost
estimates for retrofitting chevron-blade mist eliminators (single
and double), packed-bed scrubbers (single and double), and mesh-
pad mist eliminators on each of the model plants for hard and
decorative chromium electroplating and chromic acid anodizing.
The retrofit costs for each model plant include costs for
ductwork modifications and for the removal and disposal of
existing air pollution control equipment. Actual retrofit costs
will vary from plant to plant and will depend on the particular
facility's layout and present control level. Based on site visit
information on the plant layout and location of the existing
control devices, the retrofit cost estimates presented are
representative of expenditures that existing facilities would
incur. Not included in the retrofit cost scenario is
consideration for structural modifications because of possible
space constraints that an existing facility might encounter, such
as removal of a wall or equipment to make room for the control
device.
F-18
-------
F.3.1 Model Plant Retrofit Capital Cost Estimates
Three control device vendors were contacted to obtain
estimates on the additional cost to retrofit new controls at an
existing facility (including the removal of an existing control
device) over the installed capital cost for control at a new
facility.17"19 Two control device vendors estimated that the
cost to retrofit new controls at an existing facility would
increase the total capital costs from 5 to 15 and 5 to
20 percent, respectively.17'18 A third control device vendor
estimated the increase in the total capital cost for new controls
could be as much as 50 percent for smaller, less expensive
control systems, but that the increase would be less for larger,
more expensive control systems.19 Based on these vendor
estimates, an increase of 20 percent of the installed capital
costs for new facilities was selected for calculating retrofit
costs for the model plants. Transportation and disposal costs
.for existing control devices, which were not included in the
vendor estimates, were assumed to be 5 percent of the installed
capital costs of control at new facilities. This assumption was
based on transportation and disposal costs .for hexavalent
chromium solid wastes and estimates of the amount of waste to be
disposed. Bulk transportation and disposal costs were obtained -
from Chemical Waste Management in Anaheim, California.9 The
amount of waste to be disposed was based on the type and size of
various control devices. Thus, the total increase in cost to
retrofit new controls at existing facilities is 25 percent of the
installed capital cost of control for new facilities (i.e.,
estimated retrofit capital costs are 125 percent of the installed
capital cost for new facilities).
The total installed capital costs for chevron-blade mist
eliminators, packed-bed scrubbers, and mesh-pad mist eliminators
at new facilities were compiled from vendor estimates for each
type of control device. These costs are presented in
Sections F.I and F.2 of this appendix. Table F-24 presents the
estimated retrofit capital cost of these control devices for each
model plant.
F-19
-------
F.3.2 Model Plant Retrofit Annualized Cost Estimates
Total annualized retrofit costs of chevron-blade mist
eliminators, packed-bed scrubbers, and mesh-pad mist eliminators
for each hard and decorative chromium plating and chromic acid
anodizing model plant are presented in Table F-25. The
annualized retrofit costs are the same as the annualized costs of
a new control device except for the capital recovery costs and
indirect costs because these costs are both a function of the
installed capital cost. Capital recovery costs for a retrofit
situation are higher because the installed capital costs for
retrofit control devices are 25 percent higher than those for new
control devices. Indirect costs include overhead, taxes,
insurance, and administration. Taxes, insurance, and
administration are based on 4 percent of the capital costs; thus,
these costs also are higher for retrofit than for new facilities.
Table F-26 presents the net annualized retrofit costs (annualized
cost minus the chromic acid recovery credit) for the model
plants.
F.4 FUME SUPPRESSANTS
This section presents annual costs of permanent and
temporary fume suppressants for the model decorative chromium
plating plants and annual costs of permanent fume suppressants
for the model chromic acid anodizing plants. The annual costs
include the material cost of an initial makeup addition and
maintenance additions of the fume suppressant in the plating or
anodizing baths. The initial makeup addition is the fume
suppressant that is added to a plating bath not previously
containing a fume suppressant. Maintenance addition is the fume
suppressant added periodically after startup to maintain the fume
suppressant concentration in the bath at the recommended level.
There is no capital investment in equipment associated with the
use of fume suppressants as a control technique. The makeup
addition of the fume suppressant is not considered a capital cost
because it is an expendable material and would only last a few
days without frequent maintenance additions. Permanent fume
suppressants are wetting agents, foam blankets, or a combination
F-20
-------
of a wetting agent and foam blanket that are depleted primarily
by drag-out. Temporary fume suppressants are mainly foam
blankets, but can be wetting agents or a combination of a wetting
agent and foam blanket that are depleted primarily from
decomposition and drag-out.
All model tank annual costs are in 1986 dollars. The model
plant costs have been updated from October 1986 dollars to
November 1988 dollars using the Chemical Engineering (CE) plant
index from the February 1989 issue of Chemical Engineering. The
ratio of the CE plant indices for November 1988 (347.8) and
October 1986 (319.3), equal to 1.09, was used to update costs.
F.4.1 Model Tank Annual Costs
Fume suppressant cost information was obtained from five
manufacturers of fume suppressants for model tanks used in the
decorative chromium and chromic acid anodizing model plants.
Table F-27 presents the manufacturers and fume suppressant brands
for which cost data were obtained.
The model plant and model tank parameters were revised i:i
March 1988 based on data obtained from the Section 114
information requests. These revisions were made after the cost
data for fume suppressants had been obtained based on the
previous set of model tank parameters. Therefore, the fume
suppressant costs are adjusted to reflect the revisions made to
the model tank parameters. Only the maintenance addition costs
and not the initial makeup costs were affected by these
revisions. Tables F-28 and F-29 present the model tank
parameters upon which the fume suppressant cost data were
initially based along with the current model tank parameters for
decorative chromium plating and chromic acid anodizing
operations, respectively. The parameters that were changed for
the decorative chromium model tanks include the operating current
and voltage, the percent time electrodes are energized and the
chromic acid-to-sulfuric acid ratio. The parameters that were
changed for the chromic acid anodizing model tanks include the
percent time electrodes are energized and the operating time of
the large model plant. The parameters that affect costs are
F-21
-------
plant operating time and percent time electrodes are energized,
which affects the operating time of individual tanks.
Permanent fume suppressants are depleted primarily by
drag-out. Because drag-out is proportional to the number of
parts plated (which is proportional to the length of time a
plating line is operated), the cost data originally provided by
the vendors was adjusted based on the revised model tank
operating times.
Temporary fume suppressants are depleted by both drag-out
and the chemical electrolysis that occurs in the plating bath.
Information from fume suppressant vendors suggests that drag-out,
which is dependent on operating time, appears to be a more
dominant factor than chemical electrolysis, which is dependent on
operating current. Therefore, like the permanent fume
suppressants, the cost data for temporary fume suppressants was
adjusted based on the revised model tank operating times.
F.4.1.1 Decorative Chromium Plating. Information on all of
the fume suppressant brands listed in Table F-27 was used to
develop annual costs with three exceptions. Cost data for
Product l and Product 3 (manufactured by Vendor D) were not
included in the development of annual costs because these fume
suppressants are used only as supplements for Product 2 and are
rarely used alone in a decorative chromium plating tank. In
addition, cost data for Product 16 (manufactured by Vendor H)
were not included in the analysis. Product 16 is a new fume
suppressant, and the vendor requested that the preliminary
information supplied by his company not be used in the cost
analysis.
Fume suppressant cost information was obtained for two
different sizes of model tanks (42 ft2 of surface area and 72 ft2
of surface area) that are used to develop model plants. Makeup
and maintenance addition costs of permanent and temporary fume
suppressants for the 42-ft2 model tank are presented in
Tables F-30 and F-31, respectively. Makeup and maintenance
addition costs of permanent and temporary fume suppressants for
the 72-ft2 model tank are presented in Tables F-32 and F-33,
F-22
-------
respectively. Maintenance addition cost estimates for the fume
suppressants were based on a tank operating time of 1,600 hr/yr
for the 42-ft2 tank and 4,800 hr/yr for the 72-ft2 tank.
F.4.1.2 Chromic Acid Anodizing. Cost data were obtained
for two brands of permanent fume suppressants--Product 3,
manufactured by Vendor D, and Product 4, manufactured by
Vendor E.25'26 While Product 3 is used only as a supplement in
decorative chromium plating tanks, it is used for both makeup and
maintenance additions for chromic acid anodizing operations. The
requests for cost information that was submitted to fume
suppressant vendors listed specific brands for which information
was desired. While both temporary- and permanent-type fume
suppressants were included in this list, the vendors supplied.
cost data for only the permanent type. However, temporary fume
suppressants are used in chromic acid anodizing baths. For this
analysis, the cost of this type fume suppressant is assumed to be
comparable to the cost of permanent fume suppressants based en
the cost data provided for decorative chromium plating tanks.
Fume suppressant cost information was obtained for two
different sizes of model tanks (42 ft2 of surface area and
150 ft2 of surface area). Makeup and maintenance addition costs
of the permanent fume suppressants are presented in Table F-34.
Maintenance addition cost estimates for the fume suppressants
were based on a tank operating time of 500 hr/yr for the
42-ft2 model tank, and 5,760 hr/yr for the 150-ft2 model tank.
F.4.2 Model Plant Annual Costs
F.4.2.1 Decorative Chromium Plating. The average makeup
and maintenance addition costs of both the permanent and
temporary fume suppressants for each tank size were used to
compute the annual costs for the decorative chromium plating
model plants. These annual costs are presented in Tables F-35
and F-36, respectively.
The methodology used for the cost calculations is also shown
in Tables F-35 and F-36. The annual cost was calculated by
multiplying the number of tanks in each model plant by the
average fume suppressant makeup and maintenance addition costs
F-23
-------
associated with that size tank. The maintenance addition cost
for each model plant includes an operating time adjustment ratio.
The operating time adjustment ratio corrects for the difference
between the operating time of the model tanks upon which the cost
data were originally based and the revised operating time for the
model tanks. As shown in Table F-35, the average permanent fume
suppressant maintenance addition cost supplied by vendors (and
updated to November 1988 dollars) for the 42-ft2 model tank is
$1,060 based on a tank operating time of 1,600 hr/yr. The
revised 42-ft2 model tank in the small model plant operates
1,200 hr/yr. Therefore, the operating time adjustment ratio is
1,200/1,600, or 0.75, and the annual maintenance addition cost is
$800 (0.75 times $1,060). Similar calculations were performed
for the medium and large model plants. The revised model tanks
in the medium and large model plant operate 2,400 hr/yr and
3,600 hr/yr, respectively.
F.4.2.2 Chromic Acid Anodizing. The makeup and maintenance
addition costs of the permanent fume suppressants for each tank
size were used to compute the annual costs for the small and
large chromic acid anodizing model plants. The small model plant
consists of one 42-ft2 model tank, and the large model plant
consists of two 150-ft2 model tanks. The average annual cost of
permanent fume suppressants for each tank size and model plant
are presented in Table F-37. The methodology used to calculate
the annual costs for anodizing operations is the same as that
used for decorative chromium plating operations
(Section F.4.2.1).
F.5 TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PLATING PROCESS
This section presents a model plant analysis of the capital
costs for converting decorative chromium electroplating model
plants from the hexavalent chromium process to the trivalent
chromium process and incremental capital costs for installing a
trivalent chromium process instead of a hexavalent chromium
process at new plants. Also presented are the results of a
preliminary analysis of the incremental annualized costs of
trivalent chromium processes over the hexavalent chromium
F-24
-------
process. At present, the hexavalent process is the predominant
process used in the industry, although interest in and use of the
trivalent chromium process is increasing. The trivalent chromium
process is reported to be technically superior and has minimal
environmental impacts.27"30 Information obtained from a vendor
indicates that there are approximately 100 electroplating plants
currently using the trivalent chromium process.31
Cost data for converting from a hexavalent chromium to a.
trivalent chromium process were obtained from four manufacturers
of hexavalent and trivalent chromium plating baths.27"30
Table F-38 presents the manufacturers and the trivalent chromium
process products for which cost data were obtained.
There are two types of trivalent chromium processes (single-
cell and double-cell) currently marketed. The main difference
between the single- and double-cell processes is that the double-
cell process requires a physical separation of the anode from the
plating solution. In the double-cell process, the anodes are
encased in anode boxes that are lined with a permeable membra.ne
and contain a dilute solution of sulfuric acid which surrounds
the anodes. In the single-cell process the anodes are placed in
direct contact with the plating solution. The single-cell
processes are sold by Vendor F and Vendor E. The double-cell
processes are sold by Vendor H and Vendor D. The capital cost
estimates developed for the model plants are representative of
either process and are based on a compilation of cost data
obtained from the four vendors. The individual cost data
supplied by each vendor are presented in Tables F-39 and F-40 for
the 42-ft2 and 72-ft2 model tanks, respectively. All costs cire
in October 1986 dollars. The vendor estimates for the process
conversion of the 42-ft2 model tank ranged from $22,800 to
$31,700. The vendor estimates for the process conversion of the
72-ft2 model tank ranged from $46,700 to $58,000.
F.5.1 Capital Costs for Existing Facilities
F.5.1.1 Model Tanks. Capital cost information was obtciined
for the two different sizes of model tanks (42 ft2 and 72 ft"' of
surface area) that are used in the model plants. Table F-41
F-25
-------
presents the model tank parameters upon which the capital cost
estimates are based.
Table F-42 presents the capital cost associated with the
process conversion for each tank size. These costs have been
updated from October 1986 dollars to November 1988 dollars using
the ratio presented in Section F.4. The capital cost includes
the direct cost of new equipment, startup, and installation/
modification costs, plus indirect costs, taxes, and freight
charges. The new equipment purchases consist of an ampere-hour
controller(s) used to determine the frequency of chemical
additions and to provide automatic control of additions of
required chemicals to the bath, a tank liner, replacement anodes
and hangers, and anode boxes. The purchase costs of chillers and
filters also are presented in Table F-42, but these items are
considered to be optional equipment purchases. Chillers are
required for some operations where parts are plated at high
current densities and the production load is heavy or for
operations where the temperature of the cooling water is too high
to maintain the bath within its normal operating temperature
range.32"33 Filters are usually recommended to aid in the
control of plating bath contaminants.
The startup (tank conversion) cost includes the initial
makeup cost of the trivalent chromium plating solution, the
initial makeup cost of the passivation solution, and the disposal
cost (transportation and treatment) of the hexavalent solution as
hazardous waste. The passivation solution is required for some
double-cell trivalent chromium processes and improves the
corrosion resistance of the part following plating. The capital
cost of a passivation tank is not included in the equipment costs
because an existing rinse tank can be converted to hold the
passivation solution. The cost to dispose of the hexavalent
plating solution was obtained from Chemical Waste Management,
Inc., in Anaheim, California.34
Installation/modification costs are based on data obtained
from actual operating plants and are estimated to be 20 percent
of the purchased equipment cost.35 Installation/modification
F-26
-------
costs include installation of new equipment, tank cleaning, and
any modifications to the plating line, electrical supply, or
cooling system. Indirect costs include costs associated with
engineering and supervision (10 percent), process startup
(1 percent), and contingencies (20 percent).^ Taxes and freight
charges were estimated at 3 and 5 percent of the base equipment
cost, respectively.^
F.5.1.2 Model Plants. The capital cost information
obtained for each tank size was used to calculate the capital
costs for converting three model plants of varying size (small,
medium, and large) from the hexavalent to the trivalent chromium
process. The small and medium model plants consist of one and
two 42-ft2 model tanks, respectively. The large model plant
consists of five 72-ft2 model tanks. The capital cost of
conversion for each model plant is presented in Table F-43.
F.5.2 Capital Costs for New Facilities
The incremental capital cost associated with installing the
trivalent chromium process instead of the hexavalent chromium
process at a new facility is presented in Table F-44 for each
model plant. The capital cost includes the direct cost of new
equipment, installation, and startup plus indirect costs, taxes,
and freight charges.
The new equipment purchases consist of equipment that is
unique to the trivalent chromium process: an ampere-hour
controller(s) used to determine and automatically make chemical
additions to the plating bath, anode boxes, a filter system, and
chillers. The filter system and chillers are optional equipment
purchases. The incremental cost of anodes and hangers for a
trivalent chromium bath over a hexavalent chromium bath is
insignificant and is not included in Table F-44. The cost of a
tank liner is not included as an equipment cost because a tank
liner also would be needed for a hexavalent chromium tank. The
startup (plating tank[s]) cost includes the incremental cost of
the initial makeup solution for trivalent chromium over
hexavalent chromium and the initial makeup cost of the
passivation solution. Installation costs are based on data
F-27
-------
obtained from plants and are estimated to be 15 percent of the
purchased equipment cost.35 Indirect costs were based on
31 percent of the purchased equipment cost and include costs
associated with engineering and supervision, process startup, and
contingencies.36 Taxes and freight charges were 3 and 5 percent
of the base equipment cost, respectively.36
A benefit of the trivalent chromium process is the
elimination of the need for hexavalent chromium reduction units
in the wastewater treatment system. The capital cost for the
hexavalent chromium reduction system was obtained from an EPA
document.37 The capital cost of hexavalent chromium reduction
units includes storage and feed systems for the treatment
reagents, as well as the costs for hardware, piping,
instrumentation, and utility connections. These cost estimates
also are presented in Table F-44. The volume of process
wastewater to be treated was estimated for each model plant based
on information published in the effluent guidelines development
document.38 The small model plant was assumed to have a batch
system because of its low volume of wastewater. The medium and
large model plants were assumed to be equipped with a continuous
wastewater treatment system. Treatment equipment and ancillary
items required strictly for the reduction purposes were
identified and their associated costs were determined. The cost
of the reduction equipment was subtracted from the process
capital cost to achieve the net capital cost for new facilities.
F.5.3 Case Studies
Case studies were produced for three decorative chromium
plating facilities that had converted from a hexavalent chromium
process to a trivalent chromium process. Table F-45 presents a
description of the plating operation and the trivalent chromium
process operated at each of the facilities.35'39'40 Table F-46
presents the capital cost data provided by the three facilities
for the conversion from a hexavalent chromium process to a
trivalent chromium process.35'39'40 This information was used to
confirm or validate the estimating procedure for capital costs
developed from the vendor quotations.
F-28
-------
Based on information obtained from vendors and confirmed
during site visits to the three trivalent chromium plating
facilities, the capital cost of conversion is dependent upon the
size of the operation, the amount and type of available
equipment, and the configuration of the existing decorative
chromium plating line. The capital cost data obtained from the
facilities visited was used to determine whether the capital
costs estimated for the model plants are representative of what
existing plants have incurred to convert from a hexavalent
chromium process to a trivalent chromium process.
Table F-47 presents a comparison of the actual capital cost
data obtained from industry to the capital cost estimates
developed for the model plants. Plants l and 2 would be
classified as small operations, and Plant 3 would be considered a
medium operation. The small model plant capital cost estimate is
near the upper end of the range represented by the costs
submitted by Plants 1 and 2. Plant 1 operates a double-cell
trivalent chromium process, and Plant 2 operates a single-cell
process. The double-cell process is more expensive to convert
because of the need for anode boxes and the passivation solution.
Also, Plant I incurred more modification costs than Plant 2.
Because the model plant cost estimates are based on both process
costs and the cost to modify the plating line, the cost for the
small model plant would be expected to be comparable to the costs
submitted by Plant 1. The capital cost data obtained from
Plant 3 are comparable to the capital cost estimated for the
medium model plant, even though the equipment required and
modifications needed were not the same.
F.5.4 Annualized Costs
Based on the results of cost analyses and cost data provided
by operators of trivalent chromium processes, it was concluded
that the annual production cost difference between the hexavalent
chromium process and the trivalent chromium process is
negligible. The analysis of plating line costs for the trivalent
chromium plating process versus the hexavalent chromium plating
process is presented in Appendix G.
F-29
-------
U
Q
£3
O* Q
CJ
H
5
• u
fa
w
odel operation
X-9P
9 G.
I
p
-------
_ _ r-
^n CTV OO
op oo os
I
00
s s *
I 2 8
1^2
2 £ g
« i I
51 I
oo oo
00 00
0\ 0\
3,3,
II
OS
00 O\
OS 00
r- p>
oo oo
o\ o\
j r
1 I
u. u.
EAB
EAB
£ £
! Q
a.
ui
^
a.
tu
TABLE F
C
P
ac
.«
in^.iiun
F-31
-------
TABLE F-3. ANNUAL OPERATING COST FACTORS
Cost categories
Cost factors
Direct operating costs
1. Operating labor
a. Operator10'11
b. Supervisor
2. Maintenance
a. Labor5'10-11
b. Materials5
f O
3. Replacement parts (packing material)J>
4. Transportation and disposal of used packing
5. Utilities
a. Electricity"
b. Water7
Indirect operating costs
6. Overhead5
7. Property tax5
8. Insurance5
9. Administration
10. Capital recovery5
Credits
Chromic acid recovery ^
$8.37/man-hr
IS percent of la
$9.21/hr
100 percent of 3a
16.3 percent of the total replacement cost at
$i7.5o/ft3a
$50/drum disposal (plus 10 percent tax)
$40/drum transportation
$0.0461/kWh
$0.77/1,000 gal
60 percent of la + Ib + 3a + 3b
1 percent of capital cost
1 percent of capital cost
2 percent of capital cost
11.7 percent of capital cost?
$3.28/kg
aBased on an interest rate of 10 percent and a scrubber packing life of 10 years.
"Based on an interest rate of 10 percent and an equipment life of 20 years.
F-32
-------
TABLE F-4.
CAPITAL COSTS OF CHEVRON-BLADE MIST ELIMINATOR
(SINGLE SET OF BLADES)
Mist eliminator size*
Control device parameters
Design gas flow rate, nr /min
(fe/min)b
Pressure drop, kPa (in. w.c.)
Fan static pressure, kPa (in. w.c)c
Fan motor size, hp (kW)d
Cost data6
1. Basic mist eliminator
2. Inlet and outlet transition
3. Fan and motor
4. Stack
5. Base equipment*
6. Sales taxes and freight^
7. Total purchased
-equipment0
8. Installation1
9. Startup)
10. Total capital costk
A
280
(10,000)
0.19(0.75)
0.62 (2.5)
7.5 (5.6)
2,560
640
4,250
590
8,040
640
8,680
11,870
90
20,600
B
340
(12,000)
0.19(0.75)
0.75 (3.0)
10 (7.5)
2,970
660
5,000
720
9,350
750
10,100
12,340
100
22,500
C
510
(18,000)
0.19(0.75)
0.87 (3.5)
20 (15)
4,040
840
6,480
910
12,270
980
13,250
13,740
130
27,100
D
990
(35,000)
0.19(0.75)
1.4 (5.5)
50 (37)
6,540
1,800
13,090
1.180
22,610
1.810
24,420
20,840
240
45,500
I-
1,130
(40,000)
0.19(0.75)
1.2 (5.0)
SO (37)
7,170
1,980
15,300
1.230
25,680
2.050
27,730
20,590
280
48,600
aMist eliminator sizes are ranked from the lowest gas flow rate (Column A) to the highest gas flow rate
(Column E).
^Gas stream temperature is 27 °C (80 °F), gas stream moisture content is 2 percent, and altitude is 305 m
(1,000 ft).
cStatic pressures were estimated by the vendor.
^Vendor A provided motor sizes based on the static pressures and gas flow rates specified above.
eCapital costs presented in this table are based on Vendor A estimates only. Vendor A provided base
equipment and installation costs in October 1986 dollars. Costs were updated to November 1988 dollars and
were rounded to nearest $10.
fSum of 1 through 4.
SSales taxes and freight costs are 3 and 5 percent, respectively, of base equipment costs.
hSum of 5 and 6.
'Includes all costs associated with installing instrumentation, electrical components, and piping; erection and
contingencies; and fee. Assumed that control devices are installed on the roof of a plant that is 6.1 m (20 ft)
high and no structural modifications are necessary.
JOne percent of total purchased equipment cost.
of 7, 8, and 9. Costs were rounded to nearest $100.
F-33
-------
TABLE F-5. CAPITAL COSTS OF CHEVRON-BLADE MIST ELIMINATOR
(DOUBLE SETS OF BLADES)
Mist eliminator sizea
Control device parameters
Design gas flow rate, m /min
(ft3/min)b
Pressure drop, kPa (in. w.c.)
Fan static pressure, kPa (in. w.c.)c
Fan motor size, hp (kW)d
Cost data6
1. Basic mist eliminator
2. Inlet and outlet transition
3. Fan and motor
4. Stack
5. Base equipment'
6. Sales taxes and freight^
7. Total purchased equipment0
8. Installation*
9. Startup!
10. Total capital cost^
A
280
(10,000)
0.5 (2)
0.87 (3.5)
10 (7.5)
3,080
640
4,380
590
8,690
690
9,380
12,310
90
21,800
B
340
(12,000)
0.5 (2)
1.0(4.0)
15(11)
3,910
660
5,250
720
10,540
850
11,390
12,340
_u&
23,800
C
510
(18,000)
0.5 (2)
1.1(4.5)
25(19)
4,970
840
6,760
910
13,480
1.070
14,550
14,120
150
28,800
D
990
(35,000)
0.5 (2)
1.6 (6.5)
60(45)
8,380
1,800
15,230
1.180
26,590
2.130
28,720
20,840
290
49,900
E
1,130
(40,000)
0.5 (2)
1.5 (6.0)
60(45)
9,260
1,980
14,880
1.230
27,350
2.190
29,540
20,590
300
50,400
aMist eliminator sizes are ranked from the lowest gas flow rate (Column A) to the highest gas flow rate
(Column E).
"Gas stream temperature is 27 °C (80 °F), gas stream moisture content is 2 percent, and altitude is 305 m
(1,000 ft).
°Static pressures were estimated by the vendor.
"Vendor A provided motor sizes based on the static pressures and gas flow rates specified above.
eCapital costs presented in this table are based on Vendor A estimates only. Vendor A provided base
equipment and installation costs in October 1986 dollars. Costs were updated to November 1988 dollars and
were rounded to nearest $10.
*Sum of 1 through 4.
SSales taxes and freight costs are 3 and 5 percent, respectively, of base equipment costs.
hSum of 5 and 6.
'Includes all costs associated with installing instrumentation, electrical components, and piping; erection and
contingencies; and fee. Assumed that control devices are installed on the roof of a plant that is 6.1 m (20 ft)
high and no structural modifications are necessary.
JOne percent of total purchased equipment cost.
kSum of 7, 8, and 9. Costs were rounded to nearest $100.
F-34
-------
TABLE F-6.
CAPITAL COSTS OF SINGLE PACKED-BED HORIZONTAL-FLOW
SCRUBBER
Scrubber sizea
Control device parameters
•2
Design gas flow rate, nr/min
(ft3/min)b
Pressure drop, kPa (in. w.c.)
Fan static pressure, kPa (in. w.c.)c
Fan motor size, hp (kW)d
Amount of packing, m (fr )
Cost data6
1. Basic scrubber
2. Inlet and outlet transition
3. Fan and motor
4. Remote recirculation tank
5. Recirculation water pump and
motor
6. Stack
7. Base equipment^
8. Sales taxes and freight'1
9. Total purchased equipment1
10. Installation)
11. Startup
12. Total capital cost'
A
280
(10,000)
0.5 (2)
0.87 (3.5)
10 (7.5)
0.68 (24)
7,160
900
4,380
410
2,070
590
15,510
1.250
16,760
16,560
170
33,500
B
340
(12,000)
0.5 (2)
1.0 (4.0)
15(11)
0.82 (29)
8,530
1,000
5,250
410
2,180
720
18,090
1.440
19,530
16,990
200
36,700
C
510
(18,000)
0.5 (2)
1.1 (4.5)
25(19)
1.2(42)
12,250
1,860
6,760
770
2,210
910
24,760
1.980
26,740
18,590
270
45,600
D
990
(35,000)
0.5 (2)
1.6 (6.5)
60(45)
2.1(74)
20,340
3,900
15,230
840
2,290
1.180
43,780
3.500
47,280
26,430
470
74,200
E
1,130
(40,000)
Ci.5 (2)
l.il (6.0)
60 (45)
2.4 (86)
23,260
4,540
14,880
840
3,450
1.230
48,200
3.860
32,060
26,090
520
78,700
aScrubber sizes are ranked from the lowest gas flow rate (Column A) to the highest gas flow rate (Column E).
"Gas stream temperature is 27°C (80°F), gas stream moisture content is 2 percent, and altitude is 305 m
(1,000 ft).
°Static pressures were estimated by the vendor.
Vendor A provided motor sizes based on the static pressures and gas flow rates specified above.
eCapital costs presented in this table are based on Vendor A estimates only. Vendor A provided base
equipment and installation costs in October 1986 dollars. Costs were updated to November 1988 dollars and
were rounded to nearest $10.
'Includes cost of initial packing material.
SSum of 1 through 6.
^Sales taxes and freight costs are 3 and 5 percent, respectively, of base equipment costs.
jSum of 7 and 8.
^Includes all costs associated with installing instrumentation, electrical components, and piping; erection and
contingencies; and fee. Assumed that control devices are installed on the roof of a plant that is 6.1 m (20 ft)
high and no structural modifications are necessary.
*One percent of total purchased equipment cost.
'Sum of 9, 10, and 11. Costs were rounded to nearest $100.
F-35
-------
TABLE F-7.
CAPITAL COSTS OF DOUBLE PACKED-BED HORIZONTAL-FLOW
SCRUBBER
Scrubber sizea
Control device parameters
Design gas flow rate, nr/min
(fr>/min)b
Pressure drop, kPa (in. w.c.)
Fan static pressure, kPa (in.w.c.)0
Fan motor size, hp (kW)d
Amount of packing, m (fr )
Cost data6
1. Basic scrubber
2. Inlet and outlet transition
3. Fan and motor
4. Remote recirculation tank
5. Recirculation water pump and
motor
6. Stack
7. Base equipment^
8. Sales taxes and freight0
9. Total purchased equipment1
10. Installation!
11. Startup^
12. Total capital cost1
A
280
(10,000)
0.75 (3)
1.1(4.5)
15(11)
1.4 (48)
9,530
960
4,650
520
2,210
_59Q
18,460
1.470
19,930
16,560
200
36,700
B
340
(12,000)
0.75 (3)
1.2 (5.0)
15(11)
1.6 (58)
11,160
1,060
5,250
640
2,270
_72Q
21,100
1.690
22,790
16,990
230
40,000
C
510
(18,000)
0.75 (3)
1.4 (5.5)
30 (22)
2.4 (84)
15,780
1,960
6,740
850
3,450
910
29,690
2.370
32,060
18,590
320
51,000
D
990
(35,000)
0.75 (3)
1.9 (7.5)
75 (56)
4.19(148)
27,120
4,140
17,490
1,230
4,030
1.180
55,190
4.420
59,610
26,430
600
86,600
E
1,130
(40,000)
0.75 (3)
1.7 (7.0)
75 (56)
4.87 (172)
31,030
4,800
15,880
1,320
4,190
1.230
58,450
4.670
63,120
26,090
630
89,800
aScrubber sizes are ranked from the lowest gas flow rate (Column A) to the highest gas flow rate (Column E).
"Gas stream temperature is 27 °C (80 °F), gas stream moisture content is 2 percent, and altitude is 305 m
(1,000ft).
°Static pressures were estimated by the vendor.
"Vendor A provided motor sizes based on the static pressures and gas flow rates specified above.
eCapital costs presented in this table are based on Vendor A estimates only. Vendor A provided base
equipment and installation costs in October 1986 dollars. Costs were updated to November 1988 dollars and
were rounded to nearest $10.
Includes cost of packing material.
SSum of 1 through 6.
^Sales taxes and freight costs are 3 and 5 percent, respectively, of base equipment costs.
jSum of 7 and 8.
^Includes all costs associated with installing instrumentation, electrical components, and piping; erection and
contingencies; and fee. Assumed that control devices are installed on the roof of a plant that is 6.1 m (20 ft)
high and no structural modifications are necessary.
'cOne percent of total purchased equipment cost.
'Sum of 9, 10, and 11. Costs were rounded to the nearest $100.
F-36
-------
CO
U
PQ
O
W
CO
U
I
H
CO
00
TABLE
W
—" - '«'
s
•*t
o
*
o o o o
n n o ff\
oo r< ^
eh «*> n oo ts
O fS —
.J "*
in
*^
r-
8
O O
O O OOOO
pj >-> en M ^ d
00 (S iri >O
^r f
O
00
O O OOOO
C*l <"^ w1* ^ *^ <~*
s
o
= C U O
M II
8,*
o 3
5^
T3 °
Is
8
IIJi
« •:
fl
lj
^ElJ-i'
*J * 8§
o O
-------
CO
W
m
o
CO
b1
CO
b1
O
Q
g
H
2
H
W
CO
H
2
W
CQ
I
O
a
u
b
O
CO
O
u
Q
W
N
b
W
a
Q"
u
£
;ss
o >
s °-
(S
8
m o
m n r»
~ -I" cl
8
F-38
-------
w
CD
U
CO
s
o
h3
CK
o
H
ea
o
00
ON
» « »
it <*> —<
S S $ 2
ON Tf — (N
2 8 28°
^ O oo c*"i
O Sf «^ O
^ o o o o o o
« _ P^ C4
^^ r** ON
— «n m
8
8
8
8
!j
III ^si:
J-i-i 12J
^ 33 • O W
iiliUlii
•S"^ S S J
^«-S2
'SS^lle
S^l-ilSb-B,]
ar-rlBJa-Sfii
ia .3 .a o
•see s.
^1
F-39
-------
w
m
u
CO
H
i
W
U
O;
«*>!
o o
M —
o o
CM —
o
S
oo
**
s
o o
~ 8
r^
oo
ri
1/1 o o
q o o q o
rJ — 5 p4 tn
oo >o t~ •• —
(s" -," ^o" o"
o O
oo O
cT c>f
H
2 I
poo
VV OO fN)
»/•> n n
O
o (s
8
«1
•w-s.2:
£il
& cu
PJ
!SS
*
^- ^w
111
O O
• OD
I
8
•s-s r-g-g-ag-e S
-U>F,« *AIJJ
F-40
-------
TABLE F-12. CAPITAL COSTS OF MIST ELIMINATORS AND PACKED-BED
SCRUBBERS FOR HARD CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL PLANTSa
(November 1988 Dollars)
Chevron-blade mist
eliminator
Model plant size
Small0
Purchased equipment
Installation
Startup0
Total capital costd
Medium6
Purchased equipment
Installation
Startup0
Total capital cost01
Large£
Purchased equipment
Installation
Startup0
Total capital costa
Single
set of
blades
10,
12,
22,
24,
20,
45,
48,
41,
91,
100
300
100
500
400
800
200
400
800
700
500
000
Double
set of
blades
11,
12,
23,
28,
20,
49,
57,
41,
99,
400
300
100
800
700
800
300
800
400
700
600
700
Scrubber
Single
packed
bed
19,
17,
36
47
26
74
94
52
148
500
000
200
700
300
400
500
200
600
900
900
400
Double
packed
bed
22,
17,
40,
59,
26,
86,
119,
52,
1,
173,
800
000
200
000
600
400
600
600
200
900
200
300
aCapital costs for mist eliminators are form Tables F-4 and F-5,
and capital costs for scrubbers are from Tables F-6 and F-7.
DSmall model plant costs for each control device type are from
Column B in Tables F-4 through F-7.
°Startup costs are based on 1 percent of the purchased equipment
cost.
dTotal capital cost is the sum of purchased equipment,
installation, and startup costs. Costs were rounded to the
nearest $100.
eMedium model plant costs for each control device type are from
Column D in Tables F-4 through F-7.
fLarge model plant costs for each control device type are two
times medium model plant costs.
F-41
-------
TABLE F-13. CAPITAL COSTS OF MIST ELIMINATORS AND PACKED-BED
SCRUBBERS FOR DECORATIVE PLATING MODEL PLANTSa
(November 1988 Dollars)
Chevron-blade mist
eliminator
Model plant size
Small0
Purchased equipment
Installation
Startup0
Total capital costd
Medium6
Purchased equipment
Installation
Startup0
Total capital costd
Large f
Purchased equipment
Installation
Startup0
Total capital costd
Single
set of
blades
10,
12,
22,
20,
24,
45,
35,
39,
75,
100
300
100
500
200
700
200
100
200
400
400
000
Double
set of
blades
11,
12,
23,
22,
24,
47,
39,
40,
79,
400
300
100
800
800
700
200
700
500
600
400
500
Scrubber
Single
packed
bed
19
17
361
39
34
73
70
53
124
500
000
200
700
100
000
400
500
200
700
700
600
Double
packed
bed
22
17
40
45
34
80
84
53
136
,800
,000
200
,000
,600
,000
500
,100
,100
,700
800
,600
aCapital costs for mist eliminators are form Tables F-4 and F-5,
and capital costs for scrubbers are from Tables F-6 and F-7.
"Small model plant costs for each control device type are from
Column B in Tables F-4 through F-7.
°Startup costs are based on 1 percent of the purchased equipment
cost.
dTotal capital cost is the sum of purchased equipment,
installation, and startup costs. Costs were rounded to the
nearest $100.
^Medium model plant cots are two times small model plant costs.
fLarge model plant costs are two times the control device costs
in Column C plus the control device costs in Column A from
Tables F-4 through F-7.
F-42
-------
TABLE F-14. CAPITAL COSTS OF MIST ELIMINATORS AND PACKED-BED
SCRUBBERS FOR CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING MODEL PLANTSa
(November 1988 Dollars)
Chevron-blade mist
eliminator
Model plant size
Small0
Purchased equipment
Installation
Startup0
Total capital cost'1
Large £
Purchased equipment
Installation
Startup0
Total capital cost1-1
Single
set of
blades
10,
12,
22,
27,
20,
48,
100
300
100
500
700
600
300
600
Double
set of
blades
11,
12,
23,
29,
20,
50,
400
300
100
800
500
600
300
400
Scrubber
Single
packed
bed
19
17
36
52
26
78
f
/
1
t
1
9
500
000
200
700
100
100
500
700
Double
packed
bed
22
17
40
63
26
89
i
i
i
,
,
,
«00
000
200
000
100
100
(500
800
aCapital costs for mist eliminators are form Tables F-4 and F-5,
and capital costs for scrubbers are from Tables F-6 and F-7.
bSmall model plant costs for each control device type are from
Column B in Tables F-4 through F-7.
cStartup costs are based on 1 percent of the purchased equipment
cost.
dTotal capital cost is the sum of purchased equipment,
installation, and startup costs. Costs were rounded to the
nearest $100.
eLarge model plant costs for each control device type are from
Column E in Tables F-4 through F-7.
F-43
-------
TABLE F-15. ANNUALIZED COST OF MIST ELIMINATORS AND PACKED-BED
SCRUBBERS FOR HARD CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL PLANTSa
(November 1988 Dollars)
Model plant size
Small"
Utilities0
Operator and maintenance labor
Maintenance materials
Packing replacement5
Indirect costs'
Capital recovery
Annuitized cost
Chromic acid recovery^
Net annualized costs"
Medium1
Utilities0
Operator and maintenance labor"
Maintenance materials
Packing replacement6
Indirect costs
Capital recovery
Annualized cost
Chromic acid recovery^
Net annualized costs"
Large1
Utilities0
Operator and maintenance labor"
Maintenance materials
Packing replacement6
Indirect costs'
Capital recovery
Annualized cost
Chromic acid recovery^
Net annualized costs"
Chevron-blade mist eliminator
Single set
of blades
0
800
200
—
1,500
2.600
5,100
(300)
4,800
1,200
1,100
500
—
2,800
5.300
10,900
(2.400)
8,500
4,200
1,900
1,700
-
5,800
10.600
24,200
(9.100)
15,100
Double set
of blades
400
800
200
—
1,600
2.800
5,800
(300)
5,500
2,400
1,100
500
—
2,900
5.800
12,700
(2.500)
10,200
8,300
1,900
1,700
-
6,100
11.700
29,700
(9.600)
20,100
Scrubber
Single
packed-bed
600
1,700
500
200
2,800
4.300
10,100
(300)
9,800
3,800
2,300
1,100
400
5,000
8.700
21,300
(2.600)
18,700
12,900
3,900
3,600
800
10,400
17.400
49,000
(10.000)
39,000
Double
packed-bed
900
1,900
700
300
3,200
4.700
11,700
(300)
11,400
7,000
2,800
1,600
800
6,100
10.100
28,400
(2.600)
25,800
24,100
5,200
5,500
1,500
13,300
20.300
69,900
(10.000)
59,900
* Annualized costs for mist eliminators are form Tables F-8 and F-9, and annualized costs for scrubbers are from Tables
F-10andF-ll.
"Small model plant cost for each control device type are from Column Bj in Tables F-8 through F-ll.
°Utility costs for mist eliminators were rounded to zero if utility costs were less than or equal to $50 per year.
"Includes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor.
'Packing replacement costs include the cost associated with purchasing new packing material and transportation and disposal
of old material.
'Includes overhead, property tax, insurance, and administration.
SChroimc acid recovery credit for the mist eliminator with a single set of blades is based on a control efficiency of
90 percent. Chromic acid recovery credit for the mist eliminator with double sets of blades is based on a control efficiency
of 95 percent. Chromic acid recovery credit for packed-bed scrubbers is based on a control efficiency of 99 percent.
Parenthesis indicated negative values. Rounded to nearest $100.
"Numbers may not add exactly due to independent rounding. Cost data were rounded to nearest $100.
'Medium model plant costs for each control device type are from Column Dj in Tables F-8 through F-ll.
JLarge model plant costs (except for labor requirements and labor-related costs) for each control device type are two times
the annualized costs from Column D^ in Tables F-8 through F-ll. Labor costs are calculated based on the assumption that
the labor required to maintain and operate more than one control device increases the labor requirement by only 30 percent
for each additional control device.
F-44
-------
TABLE F-16 ANNUALIZED COST OF MIST ELIMINATORS AND PACKED-BED
SCRUBBERS FOR DECORATIVE CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS*
(November 1988 Dollars)
Chevron-blade mist eliminator
Model plant size
Small"
Utilities0
Operator and maintenance labor"
Maintenance materials
Packing replacement9
Indirect costs*
Capital recovery
Annualized cost
Chromic acid recovery^
Net annualized costs"
Medium1
Utilities0
Operator and maintenance labor
Maintenance materials
Packing replacement
Indirect costs1
Capital recovery
Annualized cost
Chromic acid recovery^
Net annualized costs'1
Large'
Utilities0
Operator and maintenance labor*'
Maintenance materials
Packing replacement9
Indirect costs'
Capital recovery
Annualized cost
Chromic acid recovery^
Net annualized costs"
Single set Double set
of blades of blades
0 400
800 800
200 200
1,500 1,600
2.600 2.800
5,100 5,800
(0) (0)
5,100 5,800
0 1,400
1,400 1,400
900 900
- -
3,200 3,300
5.300 5.600
10,800 12,600
(100) (100)
10,700 12,500
2,600 5,200
2,100 2,100
2,100 2,100
- -
5,500 5,700
8.800 9.300
21,100 24,400
(1.400) (1.400)
19,700 23,000
Scrubber
Single Double
packed-bed packed -bed
600 900
1,700 : ,900
500 700
200 300
2,800 :i,200
4.300 4.700
10,100 1 1,700
(01 £01
10,1000 1 1,700
2,600 :i,700
2,800 :i,400
1,800 :>,800
300 600
5,700 (>,900
8.600 ').40Q
21,800 2(5,800
(200) (200)
21,600 2(5,600
8,500 1:5,100
4,100 :>,200
4,100 (5,200
600 1,100
10,000 i;j,400
14.600 liS.200
41,900 5(5,200
(1.500) (L.500)
40,400 54,700
aAnnualized costs for mist eliminators are from Tables F-8 and F-9, and annualized costs for scrubbers are from Tiibles
F-10andF-ll.
bSmall model plant cost for each control device type are from Column Bj in Tables F-8 through F-ll.
clncludes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor.
^Packing replacement costs include the cost associated with purchasing new packing material and transportation and disposal
of old material.
Includes overhead, property tax, insurance, and administration.
^Chromic acid recovery credit for single-blade chevron-blade mist eliminators is based on a control efficiency of 90 percent.
Chromic acid recovery credit for double-blade chevron-lade mist eliminators is based on a control efficiency of 95 percent.
Chromic acid recovery credit for packed-bed scrubbers is based on a control efficiency of 97 percent. Parentheses indicate
negative values. Rounded to nearest $100.
^Numbers may not add exactly due to independent rounding. Cost were rounded to nearest $100.
''Medium model plant (except for labor requirements and labor-related costs)are two times the cost present in Column 82 in
Tables F-8 through F-ll. Labor costs are calculated based on the assumption that the labor required to maintain and
operate more than one control device increases the labor requirement by only 30 percent for each additional control device.
'Large model plant costs (except for labor requirements and labor-related costs) are two times the costs from Column C plus
the costs in Column A in Tables F-8 through F-ll. Labor costs are calculated based on the assumption that the labor
required to maintain and operate more than one control device increases the labor requirement by only 30 percent for each
additional control device.
F-45
-------
TABLE F-17 ANNUALIZED COST OF MIST ELIMINATORS AND PACKED-BED
SCRUBBERS FOR DECORATIVE CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTSa
(November 1988 Dollars)
Chevron-blade mist eliminator
Single set of
Model plant size blades
Small0
Utilities0
Operator and maintenance labor"
Maintenance materials
Packing replacement6
Indirect costs*
Capital recovery
Annualized cost
Chromic acid recovery?
Net annualized costs0
Large)
Utilities0
Operator and maintenance labor"
Maintenance materials
Packing replacement6
Indirect costs*
Capital recovery
Annualized cost
Chromic acid recovery?
Net annualized costs0
0
800
200
—
1,500
2.600
5,100
(Q)
5,100
0
1,400
800
—
3,300
5.700
11,200
(200)
11,000
Double set of
blades
400
800
200
—
1,600
2.800
5,800
(Q)
5,800
2,100
1,400
800
—
3,400
5.900
13,600
(200)
13,400
Scrubber
Single
packed-bed
600
1,700
500
200
2,800
4.300
10,100
(0)
10,1000
5,000
3,100
1,900
400
6,200
9.200
25,800
(300)
25,500
Double
packed-bed
900
1,900
700
300
3,200
4.700
11,700
(0)
11,700
10,500
4,000
2,800
900
7,600
10.500
36,300
(300)
36,000
aAnnualized costs for mist eliminators are from Tables F-8 and F-9, and annualized costs for scrubbers are
from Tables F-10 and F-ll.
Small model plant cost for each control device type are from Column Bj in Tables F-8 through F-ll.
°Utility costs for mist eliminators were rounded to zero if utility costs were less than or equal to $50 per year.
^Includes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor.
lacking replacement costs include the cost associated with purchasing new packing material and transportation
and disposal of old material.
Includes overhead, property tax, insurance, and administration.
^Chromic acid recovery credit for single-blade chevron-blade mist eliminators is based on a control efficiency of
90 percent. Chromic acid recovery credit for double-blade chevron-lade mist eliminators is based on a control
efficiency of 95 percent. Chromic acid recovery credit for packed-bed scrubbers is based on a control
efficiency of 97 percent. Parentheses indicate negative values. Rounded to nearest $100.
^Numbers may not add exactly due to independent rounding. Cost data were rounded to nearest $100.
'Large model plant costs (except for labor requirements and labor-related costs) are two times the costs from
Column €2 plus the costs in Column A in Tables F-8 through F-ll. Labor costs are calculated based on the
assumption that the labor required to maintain and operate more than one control device increases the labor
requirement by only 30 percent for each additional control device.
F-46
-------
o
H
|
1!
RATIVE i
MIST El
8§
Q ^
jjj
2 ^
i!
S 3
£ j
D4
(^ J
o s
fcQ
coQ
OS S
|i
IN
£H Q
1
3 H
MODEL 1
iOMIC A
S
HH
.0
03
H
TABLE
a
ca
1
y
£
_3
TJJ
8
vt
odel operation
S
o
-
-<
.
^
q
m
(S
2 rj
to 8 «
\O oo — • oo r<
O
O
®
q"
o
m
"2 2
«P9*2
>d
Wl
m
q"
2
00
"2 -:
OOP «r
r4 r~ wi — n
1 s
LI
e a ^
« x >
fell f
^ ill i
.s •" 8 1 a
1 ill-1
_ -a g g -3 9
•1 tjts]
1 al-ol
1 tihl
X
q
oi
q"
q
r
q
Ov
q"
iri
q"
6
(S ri o» g oo"
^S
(§©
oo n r»
x <*i ts
,8 @®
l — >/l >rt vrt
s -
U-l CS
^- •• Q
q
ri
— o
— rj r» m
-------
TABLE F-19. ANNUAL OPERATING COST FACTORS
Cost categories
Cost factors
Direct operating costs
1. Operating labor
a. Operating1^
b. Supervisor5
2. Maintenance
a. Labor11*, 11
b. Materials5
3. Replacement parts
(mesh pad)5'16
4. Transportation and
disposal of used
mesh pads'
5. Utilities
a. Electricity6
b. Water7
Indirect operating costs
6,
7,
B
9,
Overhead3
Property tax5
Insurance
Administration5
10. Capital recovery5
Credits
Chromic acid recovery12
$8.37/hr
15 percent of la
$9.2i/hr
100 percent of 3a
31.5 percent of capital cost of
mesh pad materia @ $300/ft3a
$50/drum disposal
(plus 10 percent tax)
$40/drum transportation
$0.0461/kWh
$0.77/1,000 gal
60 percent of la + ib + 3a + 3b
1 percent of capital cost
1 percent of capital cost
2 percent of capital cost
16.3 percent of capital cost of
mesh-pad mist eliminator"
$3.28/kg
aBased on an interest rate of 10 percent and a mesh pad life of
4 years.
"Based on an interest rate of 10 percent and an equipment life
of 10 years.
F-48
-------
TABLE P-20. CAPITAL COSTS OF MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATORS
Mist eliminator sizea
Control device parameter
*2
Design gas flow rate, actual m /min
(fe/min)b
Pressure drop, kPa (in. w.c.)c
Fan static pressure, kPa (in. w.c.)c
Fan motor size, hp (kW)c
Cost datad
1. Basic mist eliminator
2. Inlet and outlet transition
3. Fan and motor
4. Washdown water pump and motor
5. Stack
6. Base equipment6
7. Sales taxes and freight*
8. Total purchased equipments
9. Installation0
10. Startup1
11. Total capital cost)
A
170 (6,000)
0.75 (3.0)
1.2 (5)
7.5 (5.6)
4,000
B
230 (8,000)
0.75 (3.0)
1.2(5)
10 (7.5)
5,300
Included in basic
3,600
700
300
8,600
690
9,290
2,000
90
11,400
3,900
800
400
10,400
830
11,230
2,000
110
13,300
C
280 (10,000)
0.75 (3.0)
1-2(5)
15 (11)
5,500
mist eliminator-
4,500
900
700
11,600
930
12,530
2,000
130
14,700
D
240 (12,000)
0.75 (3.0)
1.2(5)
15 (11)
6,000
5,100
1,000
800
12,900
1.040
13,940
;'.,ooo
140
'«•«»
aMist eliminator size are ranked from the lowest gas flow rate (Column A) to the highest gas flow rate
(Column D).
^Gas stream temperature is 27 °C (80°F), gas stream moisture content is 2 percent, and altitude is 305 m
(1,000 ft).
cParameter provided by Vendor I.
^Capital costs presented in this table are based on Vendor I estimates. Vendor I provide base equipment and
installation costs in November 1988 dollars. Costs were rounded to nearest $10.
eSum of 1 through 5.
^Sales taxes and freight costs are 3 and 5 percent, respectively, of base equipment costs.
SSum of 6 and 7.
"Includes all costs associated with installing instrumentation, electrical components, and piping; and erection.
Does not include cost of engineering services, contractor fee, or contingencies. Assumed that control devices
are installed on the roof of a plant that is 6.1 m (21 ft) high and no structural modifications are necessary.
jOne percent of total purchased equipment cost.
JSum of 8, 9, and 10. Costs were rounded to nearest $100.
F-49
-------
I
Pn
w
-(S-^^g^Sc?
2 *
oe s
S!
"
o o
(^ m
o o Q
— — ft
r~ — t-
_ — — — ts cs
«s
o
8-§g3R*s
" s *
>o
2 S
« «
r-
2 9
^
r~
b
- 9
>£,
r~
b
o o
2 S
2 2 £
ci.
J8
s
5
r
8
8
• s
'11
1
2 |l,
« •« £ x<7 ••3 1
* ^-S>,tl'8 |
6 i •" 1 1 « S
.g S8 •> *
IO-VM^!;-!
lIl'Ha-lH
O — * 9 * tJ -S3
S6
a 9. « ^- 3. 'Z
Si*^/^
F-50
-------
TABLE F-22.
MODEL PLANT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES FOR
MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATORSa
(November 1988 Dollars)
Model plant size
Type of operation
Small
Medium
Large
Hard chromium plating*3
Total purchased equipment (TPE)
Incremental ductwork costc
Installation cost"
Startup (1 percent of TPE)
Total capital costs, $
Decorative chromium plating6
Total purchased equipment (TPE)
Incremental ductwork costc
Installation cost"
Startup (1 percent of TPE)
Total capital costs, $
Chromic acid anodizing£
Total purchased equipment (TPE)
Incremental ductwork costc
Installation cost"
Startup (1 percent of TPE)
Total capital costs, $
13,900 45,600
0
9,000
100
23,000
13,900
0
9,000
100
23,000
13,900
0
9,000
100
23,000
4,900
15,000
500
27,900
0
11,000
300
39,200
91,200
9,800
23,000
900
66,000 124,900
62,700
6,800
17,000
700
87,200
50,100
26,100
15,000
500
91,700
cost data were rounded to the nearest $100.
bSmall model plant costs are equal to costs presented in Column
D; and medium model plant costs are equal to sum of Columns A
and B plus two times Column C in Table F-20. Large model plant
costs are twice the cost of the medium model plant.
cEstimated cost of additional ductwork required to modify
typical capture system to accommodate installation of mesh-pad
mist eliminator.
"Installation costs include the direct cost of the installation
of each unit plus an indirect cost of $7,000 per plant that
covers the cost of engineering services, contractors fees, and
contingencies.
eSmall model plant costs equal to the costs presented in
Column D; medium model plant costs are two times the costs
presented in Column D; large model plant costs are equal to
five times the costs presented in Column C in Table F-20.
fSmall model plant costs are equal to the costs presented in
Column D. Large model plant costs are equal to four times the
costs presented in Column C in Table F-20.
F-51
-------
TABLE F-23.
MODEL PLANT ANNUALIZED COST ESTIMATES FOR MESH-PAD
MIST ELIMINATORS3
(November 1988 Dollars)
Model plant size
Type of operation
Small Medium
Large
Hard chromium plating
Utilities
Operator and maintenance labor"
Maintenance materials
Mesh pad replacement0
Indirect costs'3
Capital recovery6
Annualized cost
Chromic acid recovery1
Net annualized cost
Decorative chromium plating
Utilities
Operator and maintenance labor"
Maintenance materials
Mesh pad replacement01
Indirect costsa
Capital recovery6
Annualized cost
Chromic acid recovery^
Net annualized cost
500
1,000
400
900
1,700
3.800
8,300
(0)
8,300
500
1,000
400
900
1,700
3.800
8,300
(0)
8,300
2,700
2,400
2,600
2,600
5,600
10.800
26,700
(2.600)
24,100
2,100
1,700
1,500
1,900
3,500
6.400
17,100
(200)
16,900
9,400
5,300
8,900
5,100
13,500
20.400
62,600
(10.000)
52,600
7,800
3,800
5,600
3,800
9,100
14.200
44,300
(1.500)
42,800
Chromic acid anodizing
Utilities
Operator and maintenance labor"
Maintenance materials
Mesh pad replacement0
Indirect costsa
Capital recovery6
Annualized cost
Chromic acid recovery^
Net annualized cost
500
1,000
400
900
1,700
3.800
8,300
(0)
8,300
6,200
3,200
4,400
3,000
8,300
15.000
40,100
(300)
39,800
costs are rounded to the nearest $100.
"Includes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor.
GMesh pad replacement costs are based on a 4-year life for the
pad material. Includes cost of mesh pad replacement and
.transportation and disposal costs of used pads.
alncludes overhead, property tax, insurance, and administration.
6Capital recovery includes cost of capital for mesh-pad mist
eliminator unit(s) plus cost of capital for incremental
f ductwork
rChromic acid recovery credits are based on a removal efficiency
of 99 percent for mesh-pad mist eliminators used in hard
chromium plating processes. Parenthesis indicate negative
values.
^Chromic acid recovery credits are based on a removal efficiency
of 97 percent for mesh-pad mist eliminators used in decorative
chromium and chromium acid anodizing operations.
F-52
-------
fl
fli
a
•w
TJ
CO
FH
Z
ft
>-3
U
Q
O
S
05 —
O CQ
D^ V^
rd
CO rH
tHr4
co o
0 Q
U
CO
J CO
flj en
H H
H
ft 1-1
Cn O
O S
g -^
w
OJ
•
^"
CN
b
w
ij
1
tt)
N
-H
CQ
4_)
(H
M
rd
rH
ft
rH
tt>
T3
i
tt)
en
£_j
g
3
-H
nrl
vJ
d)
2
,_!
rH
CO
0)
CJ
-rl
S
•d
rH
O
} I
4J
G
O
CJ
"V,.
CO
CO
tt)
CJ
o
rl
o o o o o
o o o o o
co co in in m
m ** in u> vo
H CN CO H in
H H H CN H
00000
o o o o o
en ^ oo ro in
VD CN CN CO CN
in VD en o co
H
o o o o o
o o o o o
H co en o en
oo en in o oo
CN CN <* in CN
"co In
d) tt>
'O 'O
rd rd
rH rH
X) XI
4-1 4-1
O 0
ll ll
4J 4J tt) D
tt) tt) X) X)
CQ m X) X)
tt> tt> iH rl
rH rH CJ CJ
CnX) CQ co
-H O f £
CQ -d o o
^— ' rH rH
4-1 '1 1
O O rH r-l
4-> 4J rd rd
rd rd J-> •>->
G G G G
•H -rl O O rl
g g N N 0
•rl -rl -H -H 4->
rH rH rl rl rd
tt) tt) O O G
trt X! XI -H
G 4J OJ g
•H CQ CO "d *d -H
4J -H -H tt) tt) H
rd g gX)X) tt)
rH ii
Q tt) tt) T3 'd 4->
I'd "d tt> tt) CQ
tf I nj M C£ Lj .)— )
3 rH rH CJ CJ g
•H X) X) flJ flj
c * ' Oj 04*0
0 G C rtJ
rl O O 0) tt> (^
X! V-l ^ rH rH I
cj > > cnX) x!
tt) tt) G 3 CO
•d X! XI -H O Q)
VH U U CO Q S
Kl
o o o o o
o o o o o
in ro en *^* rH
ro en in rn en
en en in c^ o
H H H
o o o o o
00000
m in co o o
vo en H o
in in en o
H
(T>
o o o o o
o o o o o
H co en o en
co en in o co
CN CN ^ in CN
CQ CO
tt> tt)
•d -d
rd rd
rH rH
X)X)
4-1 4-1
O O
ll t I
4J 4-> tt) Q)
tt) tt) X) X)
CO CO X) X)
tt) tt) rl rl
rH rH CJ CJ
(7)X) CO CQ
•H O S S
CQ -d o o
4-1 4-1
o
4J
rd
dG
' -H
g
rd
U
O rH
4-> rd
rd 4-i
G G
•H O
g N
•H -H
rH rl
tt) O
CQ -d
•H 0)
gX)
i
tt) •d
"d a)
rd xt
rH CJ
X)
rd
4-)
G
O rl
N O
•H 4J
VH rd
O G
•H
g
-d
tt)
X>
0)
>d j->
tt) CO
•HI
G
O 0) tt) ft
}-l rH rH i
> tnX)X!
tt) G 3 CO
X! -H O tt)
CJ CO Q S
01
G
•H
N
•H
•d
o
G
T
•r
c.
CJ
•H
E
C
X
u
0
0
00
0
V£>
o
0
H
CO
CN
In
tt)
•d
rd
X)
4-1
O
4J
tt)
CO
tt)
rH
tn
G
-H
CO
' — "
}_,
o
4-)
rd
G
-H
g
•H
rH
tt)
Jj
CD
•H
g
0)
*d
rd
rH
X)
G
O
^-]
^
tt)
X!
U
0
o
o
ro
VD
o
o
CO
en
CN
In
tt)
rd
i
Hi
X)
4-1
O
iJ
tt)
CO
tt)
rH
X)
0
T3
^•*"
1-1
o
4->
rd
rj
•H
g
•H
rH
0)
4J
CD
•H
g
tt)
•d
rd
•H
X)
1
G
O
^
^
tt)
X!
CJ
0
o
<*
CO
en
o
0
en
in
l-i
tt)
X)
X)
2
u
CO
5
O
rH
4-1
rH
rd
4->
rj
O
N
•H
rl
O
X!
•d
tt)
X)
i
•d
tt>
y
u
rd
a
tt)
rH
tr
G
•H
CO
o
o
m
CN
H
H
O
0
0
o
in
>_i
D
X)
X)
rl
CJ
CQ
5
O
rH
4-1
rH
rd
4J
rj
O
N
•H
rl
O
X!
•d
tt)
X)
i
*d
a)
y
CJ
rd
a
tt)
rH
X)
O
Q
0
o
en
*?
H
H
o
o
en
CO
CN
r<
O
U
•H
g
-H
rH
tt)
4J
CQ
•H
g
T3
rd
a
1
XJ
CO
0)
S
CD
co
O
CJ
rd
sg
rrt O
tt>
CJ
•H
rd
CJ
CO
rd
CJ
CO
rd
0)
-H CO
4-> C
*M
S G 4-1 '
rH AJ
rd -H
0)
4J
CQ
tt)
rl
«w
rd
fiw
tt)
O co ^ >i
O tt) ti -XI
CJ 3 0)
0) 0)
T3
X! G £ O tt)
>tS tt) rH
CD G 5n ft
G rd ,, tt)-H
I S«.
3"-^
t; co H
g >iO
P. CO rl
u JJ
. tt) G
^ X! O
rd J
rd tt)
ft CJ
rd
rH 4-1
tt)
O 0)
g G
F-53
-------
X)
rd
CO
z
2
di
T
rH
U
Q
O
S
o _
fc CO
CO
EH ^
O *«
U
Q
Dfl ^-
JTj QQ
HCT\
.
i^j
S5 ^
1 "i
9?
EH x
^ £Z
o *""
EH
W
.
in
CN
fa
U
•4
|^
£_,
CU
N
•H
CO
JJ
rd
rH
rH
0)
TJ
,Q
S
CU
cn
rrt
3
g
3
•H
"S
S
•H
rH
g
CO
CU
CJ
•H
^
CU
TJ
rH
O
^_|
JJ
G
O
CJ
CO
CO
0)
CJ
o
r-l
(X
o o o o o
o o o o o
co ^D oo r^ ^3
r** ro ^* V.D o^
CN co in c- us
0 0 0 O O
O 0 O O 0
r* r» CN 01 cr>
CN ^* ^ rH O\
H H CN f) CN
O O O O O
O O O O O
H c*- in m in
V43 VO H CO CTV
H H
CO CO
0) CU
TJ TJ
rd rd
rH rH
X1X1
l| [ ^^
O 0
tl tl
JJ JJ CU CU
CU CU X) X)
CO CO X» X)
CU CU r-l S
rH rH U CJ
cnX) co co
G 13
•H O £ £
CO TJ O O
^~" rH rH
i[ | i| |
t i li
O O rH rH
JJ JJ (TJ (Ij
nj n3 4J jj
G G G G 01
-H -H O O b G
g g N N O -H
•H -H -H -H JJ JJ
rH rH r-l rH rtj (t)
CU CU O O G -H
Ot X! X! -H O
G JJ JJ g
•H CO CO T3 *O -H g
JJ -H -H CU CU rH ^
HJ g g X> X) 0) -H
rH it g
Q CU CU-d TJ 4J O
T3 "d a) a) co M
g «J flj Jri 4^ -rl X!
3 rH rH U CJ g CJ
•H X) X) nj nj
g • • aoi-d cu
0 G G (C >
SH O O CU CU d. -H
X! M rH rH rH i JJ
U > > tjiXI X! rtf
CU CU G 3 CO r^
T3 Xi Xi -H O CU O
W U CJ CO Q S U
rt cu
a Q
o o o o o
o o o o o
cr> in c^ c^ oo
n F- \s> H oo
^^ ^^ ^J^ ^0 ^*
o o o o o
o o o o o
in in uj cn H
CN ^ "^ O\ CTv
H H CN CN H
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
H r> in m in H
u> us H m cn vo
H H
CO CO
0) CU
T3 T3
(^ rrj
rH rH
XI XI
t| j 1[ I
O O
t 1 ( 1
JJ JJ CU CU
CU 0) X) XI
CO CO XI X)
CU CU d r-l
rH rH CJ O
(T>X) CO CO
G 3
-H 0 * *
CO T3 O O
-^ ^^ rH rH
IM IM
r-l ^1
O O rH rH
jj JJ rt nl
rcS rrt jj jj
G G G G
•H -H O O r-l
g g N N O
-H -H -H -H JJ
rH rH r-l r-l nj
0) CU O O G O
XI Xl -H G
JJ JJ g -H
CO CO T3 T3 -H N
-H -H 0) CU rH -rH
g gXIXl CU TJ
• ' O
CU CU T) T3 JJ G
•O TJ CU CU CO rd
ffj rrj y ^ ._<
•H rH CJ CJ g TJ
XI XI rd ft) -H
• i aa-o o
G G rrj ret
o o cu > cnxj x! --H
cu cu G d co g
XI XJ -H O Q) O
U U CO Q S »H
X!
U
o o o o o
o o o o o
H v^ cr> oo C"»
n in oo cr\ ^*
H H CN ro ^
O O O O
o o o o
p* in m in
VD H n CTl
H H
CO CO
CU CU
rrj rcJ
rH rH
XI XI
IM IM
O O
tt tj
jj jj 0) CU
CU CU X) X)
CO CO X) XI
CU CU r-l r-l
rH rH O CJ
Cn XI co co
G 3
•H o * £
CO TJ O O
^^ r"^
Ml Ul
r-l r-l
O O rH rH
jj jj ret rd
rrj rd JJ JJ
G G G G
•H -H O O M
g g N N O
-H -H -H -H JJ
rH rH r-l rH rd
CU CU O O G
XI Xl -H
JJ JJ g
CO CO TJ TJ -H
•H -H CU CU rH
g gX)X) 0)
i i
CU CU TJ TJ JJ
TJ TJ CU CU CO
rd rd M J«J -H
H rH CJ CJ g
XIX) rd rd
i i Qj QjTJ
G G rd
o o cu cu a
rl rH rH rH i
> > OlXJXi
CU CU G 3 CO
X! X! -H O CU
U CJ CO Q S
•
O
o
H
V*
JJ
CO
cu
rH
rd
(U
G
O
jj
TJ
CU
TJ
G
3
O
rl
CO
JJ
CO
o
CJ
rH
rH
f^j
rd
F-54
-------
a
TJ
CO
z
rt!
O4
w
u
Q
o In
Iii in
rt
CO rH
EH rH
CO O
0 Q
CJ
CO
i-3 00
*4j o^
EH rH
H
ft J-l
rt, 1)
*9
r . 5it
EH 11
H p
Pn O
O 3
Pi ^"
EH
W
Pi
•
CN
h
W
iJ
g
EH
CO
N
•H
CQ
4J
rj
M
rt
rH
rH
CO
TJ
CO
CD
rl
fji
3
g
3
-H
Tl
\J
CO
2
i-H
rH
CO
CO
CJ
^
CO
TJ
rH
O
rl
G
o
O
CQ
CD
CO
CJ
O
rl
CXi
Cr
G
•H
4J
rt
rH
Q
g
r"
•r-
E
c
X
CJ
TJ
rl
n:
a
o o o o o
O 0 0 0 0
£»• O CO P» O
QQ ^^ ^+4 ^J ^^
H CN <# «> in
o o o o o
O 0 0 O 0
ro CN vo n rn
O CN H H m o\
H H
In CD
(U CO
rt rt
r— 1 rH
XI XI
M-I 14-1
O O
rl rl
4J 4J CO CO
CO CO X) X!
CQ CD X) XI
CO CO rl rl
rH rH CJ CJ
OnX) co co
G 3
•H o S S
CD TJ O O
•-"-' rH r-H
i[ [ i| [
rl rl
O O rH rH
4J 4J rt rt
rt rt 4-> 4J
G G G G C7
•H -H O O rl G
g g N H O -H
rH rH rl rl rt rt
CO CO O O G rH
X! JG-H O
4-> 4J g
CO CO TJ TJ -H S
•H -H CO CO rH 3
g g X) XI CO -H
' < g
CO CO TJ TJ 4-> 0
TJ TJ CO (U CO rl
•H rH CJ U g CJ
•?•?&&,, o,
G G rt >
O O CO CO CX -H
Vl rl rH rH I 4J
> > cnxi xJ rt
CO CO G 3 CO rl
.G X3 -H O CO O
O U co Q 2 CJ
CO
Q
o o o o o
0 0 0 0 O
If} H CN CN m
CN X) CD CQ
G 3
-H O S S
CQ TJ O O
-'-'rH rH
4-1 4-1
rl rl
O O rH rH
4J 4J rt rt
fy fo j -^ j^^
Cr^ r* c*
VH >-« K«
-H -H O O M
g S N N O
rH i-H rl rl rt
co co O O G Cr
tG X! ~r) G
4J 4J g -H
CO CO TJ TJ -H N
•H -H CO CO rH -H
g g X) X) CO TJ
i i O
CO CO T) TJ U G
TJ TJ CO 0) CQ rt
rt rt M X -H
H rH O CJ g TJ
i i Qj Q«TJ CJ
G G rt (t
O O CO CO (X
rl rl rH rH 1 CJ
> > tnXt X! -H
CO CO G 3 CO g
x3 x: -H o co o
U U CO Q S rl
(^
U
00000
o o o o o
en «* vo in TJ<
CN in co o^ ^
rH H (N CO ^l*
O O O O O
00000
H t- in m in
VO VO H fl O\
H H
CD CQ
0) 0)
TJTJ
rt rt
r— 1 rH
4-1 14-1
0 0
rl rl
4J 4J CO 0)
Q) CO X) XI
CQ CQ X) X)
3 3
0) CO rl rl
rH rH CJ CJ
cnX) co CQ
G 3
•H O S S
CQ TJ O O
-^^ rH rH
4-1 4-1
rl rl
O O rH rH
4J 4J rt rt
rt rt 4J 4J
G G G G
•H -H O O 5-1
g g N N 0
r-H rH rl rl rt
CO CO O O G
X! XS 'H
4J 4J g
CO CO TJ TJ -H
•H -H CO CO H
g g X) XI CO
1 1
CO CO TJ TJ U
TJ TJ CO CO CO
rt rt X X -H
rH rH CJ CJ g
X) Xt rt rt
• i (X CXTJ
G G rt
O O CO CO £X
rl rl rH rH I
> > CDXJX5
CO CO G 3 CO
xj x: -H o co
0 U CO Q S
o
o
a.)
CO
CO
rl
rt
co
G
o
u
TJ
0)
TJ
G
3
O
rl
CD
JJ
CQ
O
CJ
rt
F-55
-------
TABLE F-27. LIST OF MANUFACTURERS WHO PROVIDED COST
INFORMATION ON INDIVIDUAL FUME SUPPRESSANTS
Manufacturer/brands
Type of fume suppressant
Vendor D20
Product la
Product 2
Product 3f
Vendor E21
Product 4
Product 5
Product 6
Product 7
Vendor F22
Product 8
Product 9
Product 10
Vendor F23
Product 11
Product 12
Product 13
Product 14
Product 15
Vendor H24
Product 16a
Temporary/foam blanket15 c
Permanent/combination^ e
Permanent/combination
Permanent/wetting agent9
Permanent/foam blanket
Permanent/combination
Temporary/foam blanket
Permanent/combination
Permanent/combination
Permanent/wetting agent
Temporary/foam blanket
Temporary/foam blanket
Permanent/combination
Permanent/combination
Permanent/combination
Permanent/foam blanket
aCost data were not included in development of annual costs for
fume suppressants.
^Temporary fume suppressants are depleted from drag-out and
decomposition of the fume suppressants.
GFoam blankets produce a layer of foam on the surface of the
plating solution to entrap chromic acid mist.
^Permanent fume suppressants are depleted mainly from drag-out
of the fume suppressant.
Combination fume suppressants are a combination of wetting
agents and foam blankets.
fCost data were not included in development of annual costs of
fume suppressants for decorative plating operations but were
used in development of fume suppressant annual costs for
anodizing operations.
^wetting agents reduce the amount of chromic acid mist by
lowering the surface tension of the bath.
F-56
-------
CO
>-,
3
pi
~
j
w
Q
o
S
rH
r_,
§
i— i
I-U
«
e
j3
~j
M
U
EH
g
U
W
Q
oi
o
fri
C/j
fV
t-M
g
S
2
rv
n.
l-M
*
CO
/V1
CN
'
ft
TABLE
_,,,;
G
rd
jj
rH
CD
•d
0
5*4
XJ
CN
JJ
14-4
i
CN
r-
rd
CN
JJ
4-1
i
CN
X)
CN
JJ
<4-l
i
CN
rd
CN
jj
4-4
i
CN
^*
£3
o
•H
JJ
rd
g
£3
O
4-1
G
•H
G
rd
jj
rH
CD
'd
s
0 0
• CO
in
»
* ^
o
•
VO
»
O
•
CN
H
O O
• CO
cn in
I*
o
vo
0
•
CN
H
O O
• m
^
» H
in
ro
„
O
H
O O
• ro
VO t>^
in
•
m
*
o
•
CN
H
JJ
M-4 H
rd
* tjl
nsions
city,
8 a
•H flJ
T3 O
JyJ ^
G G
EH H
o o
H O
CO
»
VO
VO O
H 0
0
V)
VO 0
O
VD
CN
in o
• o
f- 0
r^ ^<
* «
CD JJ
Cn G
volta
curre
en en
G G
•H -rH
JJ JJ
rd rd
&-I V-l
CD CD
a a
o o
*»< in
CN H
H H
i
O
0
H
o in
VO H
m H
CN O
l> 0
H
^ in
CN H
H H
t
O
o
H
o in
VO H
m H
1 1
CN O
r* o
H
CN
JJ
4-1
\
i4j
«
>t fa
JJ 0
•H
03
G 0)
CD rH
•d 3
JJ
JJ rd
G rH
CD CD
rH a
\ 1 ^
3 CD
U EH
o
5J<
o
1
in
m
o
o
in
ro
rH
rd
Cn
^x^
N
O
G*
•d o
-H -H
O JJ
(d ft$
O JJ
-H G
g CD
O 0
^JJ £3
A O
O U
H
..
0
O
H
H
• *
O
r-
H
H
..
O
o
H
H
0
rH
O
•H
*H
rj
4-1
rH
|3
03
•d
-H
0 O
rd -rH
jj
u rd
,_J li
g
O T3
rJ -H
X! CJ
U rd
F-
o
o
0
»
VD
CJ
o
o
o
vo
0
o
o
CN
O
o
o
CN
»
CD
£
•H
JJ
-H
JJ
rd
CD
a
o
JJ r4
G >
rH ^
(X Xi
57
o
o
CO
o
o
CO
0)
^t
rd
trodes
, %
o -d
CD d)
rH N
CD -H
en
1 CD rH
- g CD
-rH G
EH CD
CU
rH g
CD -H
O
O
<>D
»
ro
O
O
CO
^
o
o
CN
H
O
O
rH
*
CD
2
-rH
JJ
•H
Jj
rd
VH
CD
a
OT3
VH
V K^l
G >>»
rd r4
EH X!
•d jj
0 >,
g jj jj
-H G
rH CJ CD
rd -H U
G rH r4
•H a CD
en g a
-H -H
r4 03 (D
0 XJ
SH JJ
CD O
x; M-i >i
XJ Q
1 1
•M
fH ^ d)
0 J3 g
.,_(
>d jj
03 >i Cn
X) ">H -H
X! JJ
CD rd
r4 O rH
CD «3< CD
^ CN a
o
CO 10
rH JJ
CD >i G
rH rH rd
d rH rH
JJ rd a
CJ d
rd JJ • CD
MH U 03 X!
3 rd >H JJ
G O
S rd G rH
ss CD a
g >-rH
O CD JJ
rH g OrH
I4_( -H JJ 3
JJ g
•d -d
CD tn CD -
G G JJ Q)
•H -H JJ g
rd • JJ -H -H
JJ CO rd g JJ
X3 rH rH X)
o CD QJ 3 cn
JJ a 03 G
rd CD O -H
JJ g (D JJ •
rd rd JJ 3 rd *d
•d rH G rH rH CD
rd rd rd CD N
jj arH r> a-ri
01 a o en
O X CD JH
CJ G rH XJ J«! CD
rd CD JJ G G
JJ • JJ TJ rd CD
G CO O 01 JJ
rd VH rH g rd CD
03 CD CD £ CD SH
03 JJ *d rH X! rd
CD CD O rd rH JJ
rH g g G >1^ 03
a rd -H ^ G
-------
CO
H
w
Q
i
0
H
1X1
Q
O
Q
H
<
U
M
s
o
a
u
Pi
0
fa
CO
tf
i
04
•
b
W
J
1
*
§
_)
0>
i
JO
o
12
rs
t"P
6
^«
.0
^
Tt
«
en
O
^6
en
p"
2
p
^O
lf\
en
p"
ts
«
a
o
a
u
e
K3
H
o o
"\ *™
^•"
o ^o
oo —
IT)
•*
r~* SO
en
r^
o w^
r~ f*
-T ^)
•K
'i
vS-
bi\ M
- 3
"o >
o, W>
0 "is"
1 I
8
°°«
^o
0
^5
vo"
o
1
•*"
^
^
g
4)
T3
*^
§
u
s
rn
5 ?
o
oo
— cs
O
oo
8
1.2
s. s
G TI
O
'i
5 -a
I
R S
8 -s
S?
s s
. o
i 2
3 c3
es
^ is .S •§ .S
'8 8 S fc S
I o
Ui L*
J= J=
O U
g «
a. ^
o > is
fl
^ M*
•S g
S,'
F-58
-------
CN
4J
*M
i
OJ
^
^
^H
& 2
D S
wg
, rj
H H
S p
PC4
^-1
2
U
s
2
w
04
•
o
ro
1
Pt4
w
J
i
*
fllrrt
u/ "j
U M
G >i
rt\
C
Q)
4J •>
G 4J
•H 03
18
X, Q) rT
G 0 S XI
« G 9rH
^ 5^ u
^ § &0
rH tt) 5^ U
|«^ 3 .
G-S grt
5 g 0 ^
"• c U
*•
4J
-1 S
m H
_i ^
ri
i_\ j/t
•H ft
"rt «H
C! 3
H °J
M J»i
(ti
g
H
M
*w
H tn
rt XI
-H » i—
4-> ft
-rH 3 S-l
G 0) O
H M
g
rH
(11 ^
»^2
rt^C*
S ^^
o «>
LI •• ,
2 oJ JH
Sgo
U
\ 1
l. rn
M UJ rrl
<1) 0) >
t, t. V-
MM-
3 ft?
Manufact
fume sup
sant bi
H CN 0 H C
o t> u> m c
a\ \r> m o vc
» » » -
H H H H
O O O O C
O O O O C
• • • •
oo n co *!• ^
in CN CN ^ c\
o in o in c
en en oo i> IT
• • • •
nor* en t-
uj r^ »* cr\ c\
^ ,_) r-j H r-
O O O O C
o in in in «-
in CN CN oo ir
CO 00 CN O C
o m H in c
• * • •
CN co en en u1
m u) in CN o
nJ o o
ro <* in XI XI
H H H CN ^
Jj 4J 4J 4-> 4.
CH U 0 0 Q O WC
333 3 '
jn'd'd'd ^"d v< T
oooo oo oc
•d 5H !-i r) T3 H T> >•
a cu (x cu GO4 GP
0) 0) 0)
w > >
VD 00 O O O
in CN o vo en
r> in VD V45 VD
o o o o o
o o n m m
• • • • •
VO *J» CN CN CN
CO CN H H H
> o o »* H en
) CN u> m H <*
» • • • • •
CN en en in in
in *}• vo oo en
,_! ^ ,_),_)
) O O VO VO VO
in ao ^ «* <*
1 CN vo m ro co
) O O O O O
> o o o in in
• • • • • •
) H CN en m *43
i CN CN «* in in
u
X) XI oo u
c in u> H co en
J 4-) 4J fa 4-) 4J 4.
J O U O U O
333 ri 3 3 3
3 TJ T3 O 73 TJ T3
3 O O T3 O O O
4 ^ Vl G H H rH
U DJ CU O> &4 Du DJ
>
o
t>
en
o
o
•
vo
in
H
AVERAGE
li
M
(ti
0>
>i
rH
a)
ft
03
H
3
0
X!
0
o
in
\w
H
4-1
O • 03
03 C
0) T3 O
g GrH
-H 3 rH
4-> O nJ
ft CJl
CJ1
G G G
•H -H -H
4J
H) H
CD nS rt
ft
O 03 03
G a
* 0 0
G -H -H
(ti 4-) 4J
4J -H -H
TJ TJ
rt T3 -d
nj n}
C
0 ft ft
3 3
•d 0) O>
0) ,* .*
(Tj M fc
XI
C! G
0) O O
rH-H-H
tt) 4J 4J
3 3
03 rH rH
4J O O
03 CO 03
O
u -d "d
G G
0) fll ifl
o
Cl M irt
aMaintenai
bCost dat<
GCost dat<
F-59
-------
w
a
E-"
OS
O
&
^
S
s
Q
H
CO
o
w £
2 §
§ ^
m J
ir* £jp
C Q
CD
Q ^
M r,^
^5-
j-3 & co
^5,1
* 2 "o
FH 0 Q
E »{
J3 3J ^D
~! O 00
M W H
c^ ^
Qj ^
* S
log
H H
5 Q
^
s ^
S '
0 "**
w
EH
H
CO
i
"
w
J
1
U >-l
S "5
d •«•
0)
4J -
d 1 *
•H CD
rt O
S O
•^ ^ d"
o
rt d _j
4J nj " i
d n iH
rH Q) B4 rt
tfl 4J a Oi
d-H »
q frt C
*2 fe
0
4J
_i 03
m °
•H
•H S4^
« S
*^
r-t
•H 01
m
•i-i «.
4-J f1|
•H p
g
^
0) g,
2 "~^
5 i/>
o ^
3 4J
cu g
u
>s^ §
^ CQ
(U CD
It li t^^
u d M
rt CO JQ
3 (U 4-1
d S d
78 d m
2 w CQ
HO O
L/1 V^ O^
rn in rn
H H
00 0
00 0
• • *
o o o
c-* f- n
r« r>- o
H m H
CN CT> CN
H CN
CO CN O
U5 TJ< r>
• # •
O O H
H H 0
mm o
CN fl
H CN H
H CN
H H C^
4-> 4-> 4J
O o o w u
O O O O O
'U M M "O W
G PJ Oj d ft
i
S-i
CD
Mj
CQ
^4
O
•^
0
O
H
<4-4
O
0)
g
•H
-1-1
H1
•iH
4J
^1
0)
a
o
,y
fj
m
a
d
o
ID
CQ
ri
0)
m
CQ
4J
CQ
o
^
CD
C)
itenam
-H
(fl
F-60
-------
w
K
H
0
fa
g
O< 03
M r^
^ § rt
">^
O *^
i. *
p^ JJ W
«^ ,
in CO
(U 0)
3 D< C
LI p, M
U 3 r)
rt CQ xi
3 0 JJ
C § fl
IS "*H CO
VD en in m o co o
^* CO ^D O"N LO V^ CN
H CN vo in eg CN ro
in ^ m in CN CNJ H
o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o
• • • • • • t
r> CN CN oo o co o
in VD vo ro en o ^D
H CN H
CN CN m in ooo
en oo en H in co o
• • • • • • •
CO H f> CO f- CN VO
in c*- o co m ^< en
^ ^* ^ IT) rn rH ro
ooo o ooo
o en en en in co o
^ VD VO CN rO VO CO
H CN H H
CO 00 CN O OOO
f* ro H in ooo
• * • • • • •
cs GO o\ m in H cs
fO VO \f) C^ C^ C^ CS
a u o
m *" in .X) XJ XI X>
H H H CN ** in VO
jj jj jj JJ jj jj jj
OIOCJCJ QO W U U O fa
333 3 333
M *O 'O TlJ VH *O M *O 'O t3 ^
oooo oo oooo o
TJ^IrHlH TJV4 TJrHMiH T)
C C^ C^ Oj ^ 0^ C D^ C^ C^ £^
CD CD CO Q)
OOO
00 CN H
o CN in
^f in in
ooo
^O U3 VO
t • •
c^ r> p»
en en en
'J1 U) ^
oo o in
oo o r-
^* en rH
|| _u IM
VD VO VD
H H H
en en en
ooo
o in in
• . •
en m vo
<* in in
o
ou o
H co en
jj jj jj
u o u
333
OOO
O4 Oi O«
o
0
o
<*
o
o
0
CN
W
2
W
§
.
rt
(U
S-l
0) • CQ
ex co a
TJ O
00 C rH
M 3 rH
3 O ri
O QJ CD
JC
c a
0 -H -H
o
co CU 0)
* tj tj
^j* nJ (t)
>W CO CQ
oca
o o
0) -H -H
6 JJ JJ
•H -H -H
JJ TJ TJ
TJTJ
CD trj tfl
fl
•H OJ 0)
JJ U O
mac
0) C C
O JJ JJ
^ -rl-rH
f"! irt frt
t) S B
JJ
TJ TJ
(TS G fl
ftJ nJ
O Pi Pi
3 3
TJ 0) CD
d) ^ J^
co nj nj
(0 E c
X)
G G
CO O O
W -H -rH
ret JJ JJ
3 3
00 rH rH
JJ O O
CD CO CO
O
CJ TJ TJ
C G
0) (tt crj
U
G ffl ffj
nl JJ JJ
(H (tt (tS
CO TJ TJ
jj
C JJ JJ
•H CQ CQ
lx?C?
P-61
-------
w
B
«
0
fc
1
Q
CO
O
U
* J
S w
e Q
H °
^ CJ
U i__j
ft§-
S S TJ
3 5 rH
9 H rH
a S o
fc ° °
5 w w?
JSj o QO
CD ^
PQ W H
IV* r^ ^"*
s *"*
Q. E"1
'-) ^
03 o
|w
5 °
2MPORARY F
72 -ft2
EH
m
m
1
6<
TABLE
u n
rC^
G
0)
G J-J*
•H CO
18
Tank
aintenance
>nsumption,
gal
F u
c O
AJ
rH m
•H °
4J o
3|
2
c
rH
rH 01
nJ
-H •>
[ J O.
•H 3
G 0)
H ^
ES
Purchase
ost, $/gal
o
^
j_i i
0) CO
H 0) -O
ZJ M C
U 3 r(
G I G
S i-i 03
CTl VD O
^* rH C^
U3 CN H
m ^* rH
00 0
o o o
o\ a\ o
co co en
H H
m «> o
V£> VD O
CN in CN
m CN in
en in o
U) H 0
• i •
H H **
H rH O
mm o
• • •
cr> CN m
H CN H
H CM
H H r^
4J 4J 4J
O| u o wo
o o o o o
G Oi ft G 04
0) 0)
> >
CN
H
o
m
0
o
m
W
I
t
rt
^
(1)
a
ro
r4
o
0
o
CO
o
0)
e
-H
4-1
Ol
G
-H
4J
0)
ft
o
^W^
G
nj
*-*
ret
jH
O
•O
(U
CQ
rd
0)
m
DO
O
O
0)
o
intenam
1
F-62
-------
TABLE F-34. PERMANENT FUME SUPPRESSANT MAKEUP AND MAINTENANCE
COST DATA FOR THE CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING MODEL TANKS
(1986 Dollars)
Model tank
Model tank information 42-ft2 150-ft2
1. Vendor D - Product 3
a. Purchase cost, $/lb 23 23
b. Initial makeup, Ib 2.6 14.6
c. Makeup cost, $ 59.80 335.80
d. Maintenance consumption, Ib/yr 15 219
e. Maintenance cost, $/yr 345 5,037
2. Vendor E - Product $
a. Purchase cost, $/lb 25 25
b. Initial makeup, Ib 5.5 32
c. Makeup cost, $ 137.50 800
d. Maintenance consumption, Ib/yr 24 96
e. Maintenance cost, $/yr 600 2,400
F-63
-------
TABLE F-35 AVERAGE ANNUAL COST OF PERMANENT FUME SUPPRESSANTS
FOR DECORATIVE CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL PLANTS3
Component Cost data
A. Model tank data*1
1. Surface area of model tank, ft?
2. Average makeup cost of fume suppressant, $°
3. Average maintenance cost of fume suppressant, $/yr°
4. Operating time basis, hr/yr"
B. Model plant data0*
1. No. of model tanks
2. Surface area of model tanks, fr
3. Operating hours, hr/yr4*
4. Makeup cost of fume suppressant, $°
(A2 x Bl)
5. Maintenance cost of fume suppressant, $/yr° '
(A3 x Bl)(b3/A4)
6. Annual cost of fume suppressant, $/yr£
(B4 + B5)
42
170
1,060
1,600
Small
1
42
1,200
170
80
1,000
Medium
2
42
2,400
340
3,180
3,500
72
460
4,360
4,800
Large
5
72
3,600
2,300
16,350
18,700
aAll costs presented in November 1988 dollars.
"Fume suppressant cost basis (original model tank parameters).
°Cost data were rounded to the nearest $10.
^Operating time of tanks = (operating time of plant, hr/yr) multiplied by (percent time electrodes energized).
eBased on revised model plant parameters.
'Maintenance cost is adjusted by applying a ratio that corrects for the difference between the operating time of
the model tanks upon which the cost data are based and the revised operating time of the model tanks.
SCost data were rounded to nearest $100.
F-64
-------
TABLE F-36. AVERAGE ANNUAL COST OF TEMPORARY FUME SUPPRESSANTS
FOR DECORATIVE CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL PLANTSa
Component Cost data
A. Model tank data**
1.
2.
3.
4.
Surface area of model tank, fr
Average makeup cost of fume suppressant, $c
Average maintenance cost of fume suppressant, $/yr°
Operating time basis, \alyir
B. Model plant datad
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
No. of model tanks
Surface area of model tanks, fr
Operating hours, hr/yr°
Makeup cost of fume suppressant, $°
(A2 x Bl)
Maintenance cost of fume suppressant, $/yr° '
(A3 x Bl)(b3/A4)
Annual cost of fume suppressant, $/yr£
(B4 + B5)
42
200
1,200
1,600
Small
1
42
1,200
20
900
900
Medium
2
42
2,400
40
3,600
3,600
72
50
3,280
4,800
Large
5
72
3,600
200
12,300
12,500
aAll costs presented in November 1988 dollars.
''Fume suppressant cost basis (original model tank parameters).
cCost data were rounded to the nearest $10.
Operating time of tanks = (operating time of plant, hr/yr) multiplied by (percent time electrodes energu«d).
^Based on revised model plant parameters.
'Maintenance cost is adjusted by applying a ratio that corrects for the difference between the operating time of
the model tanks upon which the cost data are based and the revised operating time of the model tanks.
SCost data were rounded to nearest $100.
F-65
-------
TABLE F-37. AVERAGE ANNUAL COST OF PERMANENT FUME SUPPRESSANTS
FOR CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING MODEL PLANTSa
Component Cost data
A.
B.
Model tank data**
1. Surface area of model tank, fr
2. Average makeup cost of fume suppressant, $°
3. Average maintenance cost of fume suppressant, $/yr°
4. Operating time basis, hr/yr"
Model plant data^
1. No. of model tanks
2. Surface area of model tanks, ft2
3. Operating hours, hr/yi^
4. Makeup cost of fume suppressant, $c
(A2 x Bl)
5. Maintenance cost of fume suppressant, $/yr°
(A3 x Bl)(b3/A4)
6. Annual cost of fume suppressant, $/yr§
(B4 + B5)
42
110
520
500
1
42
1,400
110
1,460
1,600
150
620
4,050
5,760
2
150
2,400
1,240
3,380
4,600
aAll costs presented in November 1988 dollars.
"Fume suppressant cost basis (original model tank parameters).
cCost data were rounded to the nearest $10.
Operating time of tanks = (operating time of plant, hr/yr) multiplied by (percent time electrodes energized).
eBased on revised model plant parameters.
Maintenance cost is adjusted by applying a ratio that corrects for the difference between the operating time of
the model tanks upon which the cost data are based and the revised operating time of the model tanks.
§Cost data were rounded to nearest $100.
F-66
-------
TABLE F-38. LIST OF MANUFACTURERS WHO PROVIDED
COST INFORMATION ON DECORATIVE TRIVALENT
CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING PROCESSES
Manufacturer Trivalent process
Vendor F Product 17a
Vendor E Product 18a
Vendor D Product 19b
Vendor H Product 20b
^Single-cell process.
"Double-cell process.
F-67
-------
TABLE F-39. VENDOR CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES FOR CONVERTING
THE 42-ft2 MODEL TANK FROM A HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
TO A TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
(1986 Dollars)
Vendor cost data
Component
F*
Ea
Hc
New equipment costs
1. Anode boxes
2. Anodes and hangers
3. Passivation tank
a. Capital cost of tank
b. Cost of initial makeup solution
4. Tank liner
5. Ampere-hour meter or controller
6. Filter
7. Chiller
Subtotal
Modification costs
1. Tank cleaning
2. Plating line modification
3. Modifications to electrical supply6
4. Modifications to cooling system
5. Initial makeup cost of Cr •* solution
Subtotal
Installation costs
NAC
3,000
NA
NA
2,000
200
7,000
NA
12,200
d
NA
NA
NA
10.000
10,000
NA
4,600
NA
NA
2,000
NA
NA
8.500
15,100
400
3,000
NA
NA
10.700
14,100
7,200
NA
5,000
500
1,500
1,500
NA
M
15,700
200
NA
NA
NA
11.300
11,500
13,200
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13,200
1. Labor costs, $/hr
2. Process downtime
3. Indirect costs
Subtotal
576
3
J4A
576
2,520
5
NA
2,520
36
1
NA
36
NA
NA
NA
0
Total"
22,800
31,700
27,200
27,900
aSingle-cell process.
"Double-cell process.
CNA = not applicable.
Tank cleaning cost is included in the installation cost.
eAssumes tank is equipped with 12-volt rectifiers.
* Assumes tank is equipped with external shell-and-tube heat exchangers with water used as the coolant.
8Assume plant is converted during a normal holiday shutdown or over a nonworking weekday. 1 day = 8-hour
shift.
"The total capital cost provided by each individual vendor is lower than the capital cost estimated for the model
tanks because vendors were basing the estimates on their trivalent chromium process and did not include all of
the optional equipment. Also, the vendor data were not always complete.
F-68
-------
TABLE F-40. VENDOR CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES FOR CONVERTING THE
72-ft2 MODEL TANK FROM A HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
TO A TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
(1986 Dollars)
Vendor cost data
Component
Ea
New equipment costs
1. Anode boxes
2. Anodes and hangers
3. Passivation tank
a. Capital cost of tank
b. Cost of initial makeup solution
4. Tank liner
5. Ampere-hour meter or controller
6. Filter
7. Chiller
Subtotal
Modification costs
NAC
8,000
NA
NA
3,300
200
10,000
NA
21,500
NA
7,500
7,200
NA
12,000
1,200
3,000
1,500
NA
NA
24,900
1S',200
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19,200
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Subtotal
Tank cleaning
Plating line modification
Modifications to electrical supply6
sct»m*
Modifications to cooling system
Initial makeup cost of Cr 3 solution
Installation costs
1. Labor costs, $/hr
2. Process downtime
3. Indirect costs
Subtotal
576
3
NA
576
2,520
5
NA
2,520
36
1
NA
36
NA
NA
NA
NA
38.900
38,900
NA
NA
NA
0
Total11
46,700
58,500
55,00
5«,100
aSingle-cell process.
"Double-cell process.
CNA = not applicable.
"Tank cleaning cost is included in the installation cost.
eAssumes tank is equipped with 12-volt rectifiers.
'Assumes tank is equipped with external shell-and-tube heat exchangers with water used as the coolant.
^Assume plant is converted during a normal holiday shutdown or over a nonworking weekday. 1 day = 8-hour
shift.
DThe total capital cost provided by each individual vendor is lower than the capital cost estimated for the model
tanks because vendors were basing the estimates on their trivalent chromium process and did not include all of
the optional equipment. Also, the vendor data were not always complete.
F-69
-------
TABLE F-41.
MODEL TANK PARAMETERS FOR DECORATIVE CHROMIUM
PLATING MODEL TANKS
Model tank
Model tank information
42-ft2
72-ft"
Tank dimensions, ft
Tank capacity, gal
12.0, 3.5, 6.0 12.0, 6.0, 9.0
1,730 4,580
F-70
-------
TABLE F-42. CAPITAL COST OF CONVERTING HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
PROCESS TO TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS FOR EACH MODEL TANK
(November 1988 Dollars)
Model tank
Component 42-ft2 72-ft2
Startup (tank conversion)
Initial trivalent chromium solution purchase27 10,900 27,300
Initial passivation solution purchase*' 30 500 1,300
Waste disposal cost of hexavalent chromium solution**'34 3.700 3.200
Subtotal 15,100 36,800
Purchased equipment costs
Ampere-hour controller'
Tank liner27
Replacement anodes and hangers27
Anode boxes0'™
Chiller11'28
Filter^27
Subtotal
Taxes and freight6'36
TOTAL
Installation/modification*'3^
Indirect costsS'3
Total cost11
1,600
2,200
3,300
7,800
9,300
7.600
31,800
2.500
34,300
6,900
10,600
66,900
1,600
3,600
8,700
7,800
14,200
10.900
46,800
3.700
50,500
10,100
15,700
113,100
aPassivation solution is required for some trivalent chromium processes.
''Waste disposal costs include treatment and transportation. The treatment cost was estimated to be $86.00 per
55-gallon drum and the transportation cost was $909.00 per truckload. Any fraction of a load was costed out
as a full load.
cAnode boxes are required for all double-cell processes.
Optional equipment.
''Taxes and freight are estimated to be 3 and 5 percent of the base equipment cost, respectively.
^Installation/modification costs are based on 20 percent of purchased equipment costs.
^Indirect costs include costs associated with engineering and supervision (10 percent), process startup
(1 percent), and contingencies (20 percent) and are estimated to be 31 percent of the purchased equipment
cost.
DThe total capital cost is not solely attributable to air pollution control but also to process improvement.
F-71
-------
TABLE F-43. CAPITAL COST OF CONVERTING HEXAVALENT
CHROMIUM PROCESS TO TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS FOR MODEL PLANT
(November 1988 Dollars)
Model tank
Component
Small Medium
Large
Startup (tank conversion)
Initial trivalent chromium solution purchase2 '
Initial passivation solution purchase2'30
Waste disposal cost of hexavalent chromium solution"'
Subtotal
Purchased equipment costs
Ampere-hour controller^
Tank liner27
Replacement anodes and hangers2
Anode boxes0'30
Chillerb'28
Filterb'27
Subtotal
Taxes and freight0'36
TOTAL
Installation/modification1''3^
Indirect costs6'36
Total costf
10,900
500
3.700
15,100
1,600
2,200
3,300
7,800
9,300
7.600
31,800
2.500
34,300
6,900
10,600
66,900
21,800
1,000
7.400
30,200
3,200
4,400
6,600
15,600
18,600
15.200
63,600
5.100
68,700
13,700
21,300
133,900
136,500
6,500
41.00
184,000
8,000
18,000
43,500
39,000
71,000
54.500
234,000
18.700
252,700
50.500
78,300
565,500
aStartup costs include the initial makeup of the trivalent chromium solution, and the disposal cost of the
hexavalent chromium plating solution.
"Optional equipment.
^axes and freight are estimated to be 3 and 5 percent of the base equipment cost, respectively.
^Installation/modification costs are based on 20 percent of purchased equipment costs.
^direct costs include costs associated with engineering and supervision (10 percent), process startup
(1 percent), and contingencies (20 percent), and are estimated to be 31 percent of the purchased equipment
cost.
'The total capital cost is not solely attributable to air pollution control but also to process improvement.
F-72
-------
TABLE F-44. INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COST ASSOCIATED WITH INSTALLING
A TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS INSTEAD OF A HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
PROCESS AT NEW PLANTS
(November 1988 Dollars)
Component
Startup (plating tank[s]) cost8'27
Initial passivation solution**
Subtotal
Model tank
Small Medium
2,800 5,500
500 1.000
3,300 6,500
Large
27,500
6.500
34,000
Purchased equipment costs
Ampere-hour controller0
Tank liner27
Replacement anodes and hangers27
Anode boxes0'30
Chillersd>28
Filter'1'27
Subtotal
Taxes and freight6'36
TOTAL
Installation/modification*'3^
Indirect costsS>3°
4,300
8,800
3,200
15,600
18,600
15.200
52,600
4.200
56,800
8,500
17,600
8,000
39,000
71,000
54.500
172,500
13.800
186,300
27,900
57,800
Total cost
44,800 89,400 306,000
L. -IT
Wastewater treatment cost savings^'
-19,0X1 -29.400J -41,400)
Net
25,200 60,000 264,600
aStartup cost for new plant would only consist of the incremental cost of the trivalent chromium bath solution
over the hexavalent chromium bath solution. The cost differential between the trivalent chromium plating
solution and the hexavalent plating solution is $1.60 per gallon of plating solution for the small and medium
model plants and $1.20 per gallon for the large model plant.1
"Passivation solution is required for some trivalent chromium processes.
cAnode boxes are required for all double-cell processes.
^Optional equipment.
^axes and freight are estimated to be 3 to 5 percent of the base equipment cost, respectively.
Installation costs are based on 15 percent of the purchased equipment.
^Indirect costs include costs associated with engineering and supervision (10 percent), process startup
(1 percent), and contingencies (20 percent), and are based on 31 percent of the purchased equipment costs.
^Represents the capital cost of a hexavalent chromium reduction unit for the wastewater volume associated with
each model plant.
jBatch process.
J Continuous process.
kThe total capital cost is not solely attributable to air pollution control but also to process improvement.
F-73
-------
5?
P)
H
1
U
1?
W <
II
> Q
H
OJ EH
EH CO
O
W U
*T^
g _.
H Q
W
OS Q
O H
rT, *^
H4 ^
O
CO &
cd ft
u
EH EH
S 5]
9 EH
CH
3 CO
ft H
H
EH EH
f+ H
3 J
J H
ft U
.^
in
_M
>J
1
Ctj
**^
TABLE
m
AJ
a
rt
5
CN
aJ
C
cd
rH
ft
H
AJ
C
o
in
T* VO
o
*
U5
»
0
•
n
0
O CO
**
CN
H H
AJ
IM
CO
X rH
a as
a 01
AJ
..
•w >,
O AJ
-H
CO O
a ret
O P4
•H flj
CO U
a
cu j^
g a
•H ns
Q EH
r^
H
b
AJ
U r)
3 O
T) T)
0 C
r4 CU
ft >
00
H
H
AJ
0 ^
d o
T) -a
0 C
r< (U
ft >
(T>
H
Q
AJ
0 M
3 0
•a -a
o a
rl 0)
ft >
CQ
CQ
(U
CJ
2
a
•H
g
0
»H
J4
U
V
AJ Q4
a S
0) AJ
rH
rd-a
> a
•H nj
H
EH
CQ
CQ
0)
U
O
t_j
M
a
rH
rH
(U
U
1
CU
rH
Oi
a
•H
CO
,_(
rH
QJ
U
i "TO
rH CQ
Oi 0)
C u
-H O
03 r(
— ft
rH
rH
0)
O
t —-»
0) CQ
rH CQ
JQ 0)
3 U
O O
Q M
~ ft
0
o
c^
CN
O
00
00
CN
0
0
O
„
^
rl
>1
rl
X!
«k
CD
e
-H
AJ
01
G
•H
AJ
cd
M
0)
ft
O
F-74
-------
TABLE F-46. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES FOR CONVERTING FROM A
HEXAVALENT PROCESS TO A TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
FOR THE TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PLATING FACILITIES
(1986 Dollars)
Component
New equipment costs
1. Anode boxes
2. Anodes and hangers
3. Passivation tank
a. Capital cost of tank
b. Cost of initial makeup solution
4. Tank liner
5. Ampere-hour meter or controller
6. Filter
7. Chiller or cooling coils
8. Plating tank
9. Rectifiers
10. Automatic pH and temperature controllers
Subtotal
Modification costs
1 . Tank cleaning
2. Plating line modification
3. Modifications to electrical supply6
4. Modifications to cooling system'
5. Initial makeup cost of Cr solution
Subtotal
Installation costs
Totalh
1
15,680
2,895
1,400
650
NA
1,200
3,800
NA
6,150
NA
2.025
33,980
2,000
2,170
100
400
9,450
13.800
27,920
5,160
67,100
2
NAa
1,800
NA
NA
NA
NA
5,000
4,200
NA
15,000
NA
26,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.500
4,500
NA
30,500
3
NA
17,800
NA
NA
3,000
2,200
NA
31,400
NA
39,600
NA
94,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2L5QQ
24,500
NA
118,500
aNA = Not applicable.
"Numbers were rounded to nearest $100.
F-75
-------
TABLE F-47. COMPARISON OF PLANT CAPITAL COST DATA
AND MODEL PLANT CAPITAL COST DATA
(November 1988 Dollars)
Plant
Total capital cost,$
Plant data
Plant 1 (small)J
Plant 2 (small)b
Plant 3 (medium)c
Model plant data
Small
Medium
Large
71,800
32,900
138,600
66,900
133,900
565,500
aProcess was installed in November 1987. The CE Plant Index for
1987 was 323.8. Ratio of CE Plant Indices was 1.07.
"Process was installed in 1984. The CE Plant Index for 1984 was
322.7. Ratio of CE Plant Indices was 1.08.
GProcess was installed in 1981. The CE Plant Index for 1981 was
297.0. Ratio of CE Plant Indices was 1.17.
F-76
-------
F.6 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX F
1. Cost Enclosure for Control Equipment Vendors: Vendor A.
Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 31, 1986. p. 1-2.
2. Cost Enclosure for Control Equipment Vendors: Vendor B.
Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. February 18, 1987.
3. Cost Enclosure for Control Equipment: Vendor C. Prepared
for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Tria.ngle
Park, North Carolina. August 25, 1987.
4. Economic Indicators. Chemical Engineering. McGraw-Hill
Company, Volume 96, Number 2, February 1989, p. 208.
5. EAB Control Cost Manual (Third Edition), U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Publication No. EPA 450/5-87-001A. February 1987. pp. 2-1
through 2-33.
6. Monthly Energy Review. Energy Information Administration.
Department of Energy. Washington, D.C. October 1988.
7. Telecon. Caldwell, M. J., MRI, with Kraft, G., American
Water Works Association. March 13, 1989. Information
concerning nationwide residential and commercial water rates
for January 1989.
8. Telecon. Barker, R., MRI, to Vendor A. March 30, 1989.
Information concerning scrubber packing life expectancy and
replacement cost.
9. Telecon. Caldwell, M. J., MRI, with Glovenor, S., Chemical
Waste Management. April 11, 1989. Information on disposal
and transportation costs for hexavalent chromium solid
waste.
10. Supplement to Employment and Earnings, Bureau of Labor
Statistics. August 1988. p. 55.
11. Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Volume 112, Number 1. January 1989.
12. Telecon. Barker, R., MRI, to Jones, R., Ashland Chemiceil
Corp., Raleigh, North Carolina. June 1, 1989. Information
concerning industrial grade chromic acid costs.
13. Letter and cost enclosure from Vendor I, to R. Barker,
Midwest Research Institute. November 24, 1988. p. 1.
14. Reference 13, pp. 3-6.
F-77
-------
15. Letter and cost enclosure from Vendor I, to R. Barker,
Midwest Research Institute. January 24, 1989. pp. 1-4.
16. Telecon. Barker, R., MRI, to Vendor I. February 21, 1989.
Information concerning mesh-pad mist eliminator cost data.
17. Telecon. R. Barker, MRI, with Vendor A. April 28, 1989.
Retrofit costs as a percentage of new facility costs.
18. Telecon. M. J. Caldwell, MRI, with Vendor I. May 1, 1989.
Retrofit costs as a percentage of new facility costs.
19. Telecon. M. J. Caldwell, MRI, with Vendor C. May 1, 1989.
Retrofit costs as a percentage of new facility costs.
20. Cost Enclosure for Fume Suppressant Vendors: Vendor D.
Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. February 20, 1987. p. 2-3.
21. Cost Enclosure for Fume Suppressant Vendors: Vendor E.
Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. February 26, 1987. p. 2-3.
22. Cost Enclosure for Fume Suppressant Vendors: Vendor F.
Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. January 20, 1987. p. 2-3.
23. Cost Enclosure for Fume Suppressant Vendors: Vendor G.
Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. January 20, 1987. p. 2-3.
24. Cost Enclosure for Fume Suppressant Vendors: Vendor H.
Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. February 9, 1987. p. 2-3.
25. Reference 20, p. 6.
26. Reference 21, p. 6.
27. Cost Enclosure for Decorative Chromium Electroplating
Processes: Vendor F. Prepared for U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
June 22, 1987. p. 4.
28. Cost Enclosure for Decorative Chromium Electroplating
Processes: Vendor E. Prepared for U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
June 5, 1987. p. 4.
29. Cost Enclosure for Decorative Chromium Electroplating
Processes: Vendor H. Prepared for U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
June 22, 1987. p. 4.
F-78
-------
30. Cost Enclosure for Decorative Chromium Electroplating
Processes: Vendor D. Prepared for U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
June 18, 1987. p. 4.
31. Telecon. Barker, R., MRI, to Vendor F. September 16, 1987.
Information on installation and modification costs
associated with the trivalent chromium process conversion.
32. Telecon. Barker, R., MRI, to Vendor F. December 10, 1987.
Information on chillers and ampere-hours meters for
trivalent chromium plating.
33. Telecon. Barker, R., MRI, to Vendor E. December 14, 1987.
Information on chiller requirements for trivalent chromium
plating.
34. Telecon. Barker, R., MRI, to Gloverner, S., Chemical Waste
Management, Anaheim, California. September 16, 1987.
Information about hexavalent chromium plating solution
disposal costs.
35. Memo from Barker, R., MRI, to Smith, A., EPA/ISB. May 20,
1988. Trip report for Universal Gym and Nissan Company.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
36. Neveril, R. B., Card, Inc. Capital and Operating Costs of
Selected Air Pollution Control Systems. Prepared for U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. Publication No. EPA-450/5-80-002.
December 1978. p. 3-3.
37. Environmental Pollution Control Alternatives: Reducing
Water Pollution Control Costs in the Electroplating
Industry. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. EPA Publication: 625/5-85/016.
September 1985. p. 7.
38. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Metal Finishing Industry. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA
Publication: 440-1-83-091. June 1983. p. V-12.
39. Memo from Barker, R., MRI, to Smith, A., EPA/ISB. May 20,
1988. Trip report for Lufkin Rule, Apex, North Carolina..
40. Memo from Barker, R., MRI, to Smith, A., EPA/ISB. May 20,
1988. Trip report for Plant ABC, Southeastern United
States.
F-79
-------
APPENDIX G.
ANALYSIS OF ANNUAL PLATING LINE COSTS FOR THE TRIVALENT
CHROMIUM PLATING PROCESS VERSUS THE HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
PLATING PROCESS
-------
APPENDIX G. ANALYSIS OF ANNUAL PLATING LINE COSTS FOR THE
TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PLATING PROCESS VERSUS THE
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PLATING PROCESS
G.I INTRODUCTION
This appendix presents an analysis of the plating line costs
for specific end products associated with the operation of the
hexavalent chromium and trivalent chromium plating processes for
each decorative chromium plating model plant. The trivalent
chromium process applies only to decorative chromium plating
operations because the process can plate only up to a thickness
of 1 mil (thousandth of an inch), which is less than the
thicknesses required in hard chromium plating. Vendors of the
trivalent chromium process state that operations that have
converted from the hexavalent chromium process to the trivalent
chromium process have experienced substantial reductions in
production costs.1"4 During visits made to facilities that had
converted from the hexavalent chromium process to the trivalent
chromium process, plant personnel indicated that the trivalent
chromium process was less costly to operate than the hexavalent
chromium process.5"9 The purpose of this model plant analysis
was to determine the extent of the cost reduction attributable to
the trivalent chromium process for specific end products at each
of the model plants.
The following sections present background information on the
trivalent chromium process, procedures used to estimate the costs
of both the hexavalent and trivalent chromium processes, and the
results of applying the costing procedures to selected model
plants. In addition, incremental capital and capital recovery
G-l
-------
costs associated with the conversion from the hexavalent process
to the trivalent chromium process are presented for each model
plant.
G.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
There are two types of trivalent chromium processes
available for decorative chromium plating: the single cell and
the double cell. In the single-cell process, anodes are in
direct contact with the plating solution. In the double-cell
process, anodes are encased in boxes that are lined with a
permeable (ion-selective) membrane and that contain a dilute
solution of sulfuric acid. The membrane allows positively
charged hydrogen ions to pass through but not other positively
charged ions (such as ions of trivalent chromium) present in the
plating solution. This mechanism prevents undesirable side
reactions (such as oxidation of trivalent chromium to hexavalent •
chromium) from occurring at the anode. The use of a weak
solution of sulfuric acid in the anode box facilitates the
passage of hydrogen ions through the membrane (away from the
anode) to compensate for hydrogen gas evolution at the cathode.
The only difference in the configuration of a plating line that
has been converted from a hexavalent chromium process to a
trivalent chromium process is the addition of a rinse tank prior
to the chromium plating tank. In the case of the double-cell
process, a passivation solution is also used after the parts
leave the chromium plating tank.1"4
One vendor estimated that there are approximately
100 operations currently using trivalent chromium processes.10
Vendors of single-cell processes include Vendor E and Vendor F.
Vendors of double-cell processes include Vendor D and Vendor H.
Benefits associated with these processes, as compared to the
hexavalent chromium process, are derived from (1) higher
productivity due to superior throwing and covering power, with
the resultant ability to plate more parts per rack; (2) improved
plating efficiency resulting in lower reject rates, and thus
fewer parts requiring rework; (3) elimination of the need for
replacement anodes required with hexavalent chromium processes;
G-2
-------
(4) elimination of exhaust ventilation systems because trivalent
chromium processes produce essentially no mist, and the bath can
tolerate only trace amounts of hexavalent chromium; and
(5) reduced wastewater treatment requirements because of lower
chromium concentrations and the absence of hexavalent chromium in
the wastewater.1"4
G.3 COMPARATIVE COST MODEL
A cost model was developed to compare total plating line
costs (total cost to operate the plating line) between the
hexavalent and trivalent chromium processes. In developing the
model, emphasis was placed on operational factors that differ
between the two processes and that affect overall production
costs. These factors include differences in chemical usage and
cost, production efficiency, operation and maintenance
requirements, energy requirements, and wastewater treatment
requirements. Information on these factors was obtained directly
from facilities that use hexavalent and trivalent chromium
processes, from vendors that manufacture both processes, and from
firms that supply wastewater treatment systems. The model, which
is presented in Table G-l, consists of 10 sections.
The first four sections allow for the specification of input
parameters pertaining to the part being plated, the model plant
size, unit cost factors, and production rates. The remaining six
sections contain the mathematical expressions used to calculate
the cost estimates. A description of each section and its
function in the cost model is given below:
A. End-Product (Part) Parameters
In this section, the part and its plating parameters are
specified. The parameters include surface area of the part,
plating time, current density, and plating thickness. These
parameters are used to calculate the required current, in ampere-
hours, needed to plate each part or each square foot of part
surface area. Ampere-hours are obtained by multiplying the
current density (amperes per square foot) by the plating time
(hours) and the surface area of the part (square feet). The
required current (ampere-hours per square foot) is used to
G-3
-------
determine the chemical costs. For this analysis, it is assured
that the current density and plating time are the same for both
the hexavalent and trivalent chromium processes.
B. Model Plant Parameters
In this section, parameters that define the size of the
plating facility are specified. These parameters include number
of plating lines, annual operating time, percent of time
electrodes are energized, fan horsepower required for
ventilation, and chromium wastewater flow rates. These
parameters are used along with the end-product parameters to
determine production capacity as well as the wastewater treatment
and fan electrical requirements.
C. Cost Factors
This section specifies the cost factors, expressed in
dollars per unit of consumption, for wastewater treatment,
process chemicals, and electricity. These factors are used to
estimate the cost of individual components that, combined, make
up the total plating line costs.
D. Production Parameters
This section identifies key parameters that establish
production efficiency. These parameters include the rework rate
for both processes (the percentage of total parts produced per
year that requires replating because of flaws in the original
finish) and the percent increase in productivity associated with
the trivalent chromium process. The rework rates for each
process are the most critical variables in the cost model.
Also identified in this section is the maximum annual
production rate for the hexavalent chromium process. The maximum
annual production rate is an ideal value based on the assumption
that no parts require reworking. The maximum annual production
rate considers the type of part plated and the size of the
plating tank(s). The size of the plating tank(s) limits the
number of racks that can be processed, while the part size and
plating specifications limit the number of parts that can be put
on a rack (rack population).
G-4
-------
E. Production Rates
This section of the model calculates production rates. The
maximum annual production rate for the trivalent chromium process
equals the maximum annual production rate of the hexavalent
chromium process plus the percent increase in productivity
specified in Section D. The total number of parts a facility can
sell or distribute as final end products is less than the maximum
annual production rate because of reworked parts that are
replated. The number of parts that are replated each year equals
the maximum annual production rate times the rework rate. Once
the number of reworked parts per year is known, the number of
parts that were plated and did not require reworking (once-
through parts) and the total annual production rate can be
determined. The number of once-through parts is equal to the
maximum annual production rate minus twice the number of reworked
parts, since all reworked parts are plated two times. The total
annual production rate then equals the sum of the number of once-
through parts and the number of reworked parts. A basic
assumption used in determining the total annual production rate
is that all reworked parts are replated only once.
F. Chemical Cost
This section of the model calculates the chemical costs on a
unit basis. Chemical costs are calculated by multiplying the
chemical cost factor ($/Ah) for each process as specified in
Section C by the amount of current required per square foot of
part surface area (Ah/ft2) as specified in Section A. This
product, in terms of dollars per square foot, is then multiplied
by the surface area of each part to obtain the chemical cost per
part. The chemical cost difference between the two processes is
then calculated and subsequently used to determine the unit
plating costs (plating cost per part) for the trivalent chromium
process.
G. Plating Costs
This section provides estimates of annual plating costs for
both processes. First, the unit plating costs are calculated.
The plating cost factor ($/ft2) for hexavalent chromium plating
G-5
-------
is a known input for the type of part selected. The unit plating
cost for hexavalent chromium plating is calculated by multiplying
the plating cost factor ($/ft2) by the surface area (ft2) of the
part or end product to be plated. The unit plating cost includes
costs associated with process chemicals, utilities, and
maintenance and labor. The unit plating cost for trivalent
chromium is assumed to equal the unit plating cost calculated for
hexavalent chromium plus the incremental cost for chemicals
associated with the trivalent chromium process (calculated in
Section F). This assumption is valid because the only component
of unit plating costs that differs between the two processes is
the chemical cost. For both processes, the rework unit plating
cost is twice the original plating cost because reworked parts
are plated twice.
Annual plating costs for once-through and reworked parts
are calculated by multiplying the unit plating costs for once-
through parts by the number of once-through parts and adding the
result to the product of the unit plating cost for reworked parts
times the number of reworked parts.
H. Wastewater Treatment Costs
In this section, the volume of wastewater to be treated and
the associated treatment costs are calculated based on the size
of the plating operations. The volume of wastewater treated per
year is the product of the wastewater flow rate for each plating
line (Section B), number of plating lines (Section B), and annual
operating time (Section B). This value (gal/yr) is then
multiplied by the wastewater treatment cost factor ($/gal),
specified in Section C for each process, to yield the total
annual wastewater treatment costs.
I. Fan Electrical Costs
This section presents calculations for fan electrical costs
associated with the operation of fans needed for exhaust
ventilation. Fan electrical costs apply only to the hexaval€int
chromium process because trivalent chromium processes do not
require ventilation. Annual fan electrical costs are calculeited
by multiplying annual fan electrical requirements (kWh) by the
G-6
-------
unit electrical cost ($/kWh) specified in Section C. The fan
electrical requirements are based on the horsepower requirements
for the exhaust ventilation system and the annual facility
operating hours specified in Section B.
J. Plating Line Costs
Annual costs for plating, wastewater treatment, and fan
electrical requirements are summed to obtain an estimate of the
total annual plating line cost. The total annual plating line
costs are then divided by total annual production for each
process to obtain unit plating line costs for each process. The
unit plating line cost for the trivalent chromium process is then
subtracted from the unit plating line cost of the hexavalent
chromium process to obtain the cost difference. This cost
difference is then multiplied by the total number of parts
produced per year with the hexavalent chromium process to yield
the incremental annual cost or savings associated with the
trivalent chromium process.
G.4 OVERVIEW OF COST ANALYSIS
The purpose of the cost analysis is to obtain estimates of
incremental costs or savings associated with the conversion from
hexavalent to trivalent chromium plating processes. For the
purpose of this analysis, three representative end products were
selected: ratchets, faucets, and bumpers. These end products
were chosen because they are reasonably representative of the
type of parts that receive decorative chromium plate. Three
model plants (small, medium, and large) that represent existing
decorative chromium plating operations were selected to compare
process costs. Ratchets and faucets were assumed to be produced
at the small and medium model plants and bumpers were assumed to
be produced only at the large model plant.
The first focus in the cost analysis was to determine the
major production parameters that affect the process cost
differential. This determination was made by holding all the
input parameters constant and varying the values of each
production parameter to determine its impact on the costs. As a
result of this analysis, the rework rate was determined to be the
G-7
-------
most critical production parameter influencing the process cossts.
Therefore, it was imperative to obtain reasonable estimates for
the rework rates associated with each process and end product.,
Rework rates obtained from hexavalent chromium facilities
varied significantly from 1 to 15 percent, with most plants in
the range between 3 and 10 percent, whereas rework rates supplied
by plants for the trivalent chromium process ranged from 0 to
2 percent, with an average rework rate of 1 percent.5"9'11"13 As
a result of the broad variability in rework rates and the
sensitivity of the analysis to the rework rates, the decision was
made to conduct the cost analysis on three different production
scenarios that would represent the range of hexavalent chromium
rework rates identified. For each scenario, the trivalent
chromium rework rate was constant at 1 percent, while the rework
rate for the hexavalent chromium process varied. In each
scenario, the small, medium, and large model plants were assumed
to be plating ratchets, faucets, and bumpers, respectively. In
the first scenario, the rework rates for the hexavalent chromium
process were set at the values provided by the individual plants
that plated the parts selected. In the second scenario, the
rework rate for all parts was set at the average rework rate
given by the plants using the hexavalent chromium process. In
addition, a third production scenario was developed to determine
the break-even point between the two processes for each end
product examined. This point was determined by forcing the
annual plating cost differential to zero and computing the
hexavalent chromium rework rate for that condition.
G.5 COST MODEL INPUTS
The inputs used in the cost model for this analysis are
described in the following sections.
A. End-Product (Part) Parameters
The three end products (ratchets, faucets, and bumpers)
selected for analysis were chosen because they are reasonably
representative of the range of parts that receive decorative
chromium plate. Values for each end product parameter specified
in the model are presented in Table G-2. These values were
G-8
-------
obtained from three plants that currently plate these parts using
the conventional hexavalent chromium process.11"1^ The
parameters include the plating time, current density, surface
area, and plating thickness for each part.
B. Model Plant Parameters
Parameters for the three model plant sizes used in the
analysis are provided in Table G-3. The bases for their
selection are presented in BID Chapters 5 and 6. In addition,
the estimate of the volume of chromium wastewater generated from
each plating line was obtained from information supplied by two
plants that operate hexavalent and trivalent chromium plating
lines similar in size to the plating lines in the model
plants.14'15
C. Cost Factors
Cost factors required to exercise the model are presented in
Table G-4. The chemical cost factors are based on information
obtained from four vendors of the hexavalent and trivalent
chromium processes.1'4 The chemical cost factor is expressed as
dollars per ampere-hour rather than dollars per gallon because
the rate of chemical consumption is directly related to the
amount of work processed or current applied. The chemical costs
for the hexavalent chromium process include costs only for the
chromic acid plating bath. The chemical costs for the trivalent
chromium process include costs for the trivalent chromium plating
bath and a passivation bath. As indicated in Table G-4, chemical
costs associated with the trivalent chromium process are
substantially higher (about 13 times) than those for the
hexavalent chromium process. Because chemicals for all
nonchromium plating line operations are the same for both
processes, they were not considered in this analysis.
The cost factors for treatment ($/gal) of the hexavalent
chromium process wastewaters are based on information obtained
from two wastewater treatment firms.16"17 No treatment cost
estimates for the trivalent chromium process wastewaters were
available from wastewater treatment firms. Therefore, the
wastewater treatment cost factor associated with the trivalent
G-9
-------
chromium process was developed from the breakdown of the
individual cost components for treatment of hexavalent chromium
wastewaters. The costs associated with wastewater treatment for
the hexavalent chromium process include labor costs and process
and equipment costs (chemical consumption, electrical costs,
etc.). The labor component of the wastewater treatment cost is
approximately 30 percent of the total cost. The amount of labor
required for each process was assumed to be the same because the
amount of wastewater treated per year is the same for both
processes. The cost associated with chemical consumption and
equipment operation was assumed to be 15 percent of the
hexavalent chromium treatment cost because the amount of chromium
present in the trivalent chromium wastewaters is only 13 percent
of the amount found in hexavalent chromium wastewaters. In
addition, the chromium in trivalent chromium wastewaters is
already in the trivalent chromium state so the reduction step
(converting hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium) in the
wastewater treatment process is not needed. Therefore, the
treatment cost factor associated with the trivalent chromium
process is assumed to be equal to 45 percent (30 percent for
labor plus 15 percent for process operation) of that for the
hexavalent chromium process.
The electrical cost factor ($/kWh) was obtained from the
October 1988 issue of Monthly Energy Review.18
Plating cost factors for the hexavalent chromium plating
process ($/ft2) are based on an average of costs supplied by
three facilities that plate the selected parts.11"1^ Plating
cost factors for the trivalent chromium process were not
available on a per-unit basis. Therefore, plating cost factors
for this process were estimated. It was assumed that the unit
plating cost calculated from the plating cost factor for the
hexavalent chromium process plus the difference in unit chemical
cost between the two processes would yield a valid estimate of
unit plating costs for the trivalent chromium process. This
assumption should be valid because the only difference in the
costs between the two plating processes is associated with the
G-lO
-------
operation of the chromium plating step since all other process
steps are the same regardless of which plating process is used.
D. Production Parameters
The production parameters and the productivity increase for
the trivalent chromium process were derived from information
obtained from plants that use the hexavalent and trivalent
chromium processes. The rework rates supplied by plants that use
the hexavalent chromium process ranged from 1 to 15 percent, with
most plants in the range between 3 and 10 percent. 5~7/11"13 rp^g
rework rates supplied by plants for the trivalent chromium
process ranged from 0 to 2.0 percent.5"9 Based on information
obtained from two trivalent chromium plants, it is assumed that
production increases by 20 percent for the trivalent chromium
process over the hexavalent chromium process because of the
higher efficiency of the trivalent chromium process, which allows
more parts to be plated simultaneously.6"7
The production rates for the hexavalent chromium process are
based on production parameters provided by the plants that plated
the parts selected for analysis. These production parameters are
shown in Table G-5.11"13 The model plant production rates
calculated from these parameters are presented in Table G-6. The
production rate calculations are presented in Attachment 1.
Ratchets and faucets were assumed to be produced at the small and
medium model plants, and bumpers were assumed to be produced only
at the large model plant.
G.6 RESULTS
The most critical parameter affecting the plating line costs
is the hexavalent chromium rework rate. Table G-7 presents the
cost differential ($/ft2) obtained for each of 10 hexavalent
chromium rework rates (1 to 10 percent) examined.
For the three end products evaluated, the plating line cost
differential increased as the hexavalent chromium rework rate
increased. This increase is a result of the increase in costs
associated with the higher rework rates for the hexavalent
chromium process. As shown in Table G-7, the difference in the
cost per square foot between the hexavalent and trivalent
G-ll
-------
chromium processes for all parts plated ranges from an additional
cost of a few cents at low hexavalent chromium rework rates to a
savings of a few cents at high rework rates. At the low rework
rates, the increased chemical costs associated with the trivalent
chromium process are not offset by the decrease in the number of
reworked parts and the lower wastewater treatment requirement.
However, at high hexavalent chromium rework rates, the increased
chemical costs associated with the trivalent chromium process are
more than offset by the reduction in the number of reworked parts
and the lower wastewater treatment costs. Therefore, there is a
break-even point (which is dependent upon the type of part
plated) above which a plant will realize a savings from the
trivalent chromium process. This break-even point is between 2
and 3 percent for ratchets, 4 and 5 percent for faucets, and 5
and 7 percent for bumpers. For any rework rate above this break--
even point, a plating facility would realize a savings with ttie
trivalent chromium process. It should be noted that, for any
given hexavalent and trivalent chromium rework rate and part
plated, the cost differential between the processes is the same
regardless of plant size (i.e., production rate).
Total annualized costs associated with the operation of the
trivalent chromium process were calculated under three cost
scenarios representing the full range of hexavalent chromium
rework rates encountered. For each scenario, the trivalent
chromium rework rate was constant at 1 percent, while the rework
rate for the hexavalent chromium process varied. The small,
medium, and large model plants were assumed to be plating
ratchets, faucets, and bumpers, respectively.
In the first scenario, the trivalent chromium rework rate
was constant at 1 percent, while the rework rates for the
hexavalent chromium process were set at the values provided by
the individual plants that plated the parts selected. The
corresponding hexavalent chromium rework rates for the first
scenario were 1, 3, and 15 percent for ratchets, faucets, and.
bumpers, respectively. Table G-8 presents the model plant
plating line cost analysis for this scenario. Under this
G-12
-------
scenario, the small and medium model plants were predicted to
have increased costs associated with the operation of the
trivalent chromium process, whereas a large cost savings was
predicted for the large model plant. The increase in cost per
part for the small and medium model plants was $0.002/part and
$0.007/part, respectively, whereas the cost savings per part for
the large model plant was $1.04/part. The annual costs predicted
for the small and medium model plants were $10,300 and $2,700,
respectively. The annual savings predicted for the large model
plant was $2,389,100.
In the second scenario, the rework rate for all parts was
set at the average rework rate (7 percent) given by the
hexavalent chromium process plants. The results of the model
plant plating line cost analysis for this scenario are presented
in Table G-9. Under this scenario, annual cost savings were
predicted at each model plant. The cost savings were
$0.005/part, $0.012/part, and $0.029/part for the small, medium,
and large model plants, respectively. The annual savings were
$24,200, $4,500, and $72,800 for the small, medium, and large
model plants, respectively.
A third scenario, shown in Table G-10, was developed for
informational purposes only. This scenario was developed to
determine the hexavalent chromium rework rates at the break-even
point. The hexavalent chromium rework rates at the break-even
point for ratchets, faucets, and bumpers were 2.85, 4.5, and
6.75, respectively. This scenario demonstrates how the type of
part plated influences the process cost differential because the
break-even point was different for each product selected.
G.7 CAPITAL RECOVERY COSTS
Costs of capital recovery were calculated for both new and
existing facilities. Capital costs representative of the process
installation at new facilities and the process conversion at
existing facilities are shown in Tables G-ll and G-12,
respectively. The cost of capital recovery calculated from these
capital expenditures is presented in Table G-13. The cost of
G-13
-------
capital recovery for equipment purchases was calculated based on
the following equation and assumptions:
CRC = TCC[i(l + i)n/(l + i)n - 1]
where:
i = interest rate, 10 percent;
n = equipment life, yrs;
TCC = total capital cost of equipment; and
CRC = capital recovery costs, $/yr.
The equipment life was estimated by a vendor of the
trivalent and hexavalent chromium processes.19 The equipment
purchases include such items as the chillers, filters, anode
boxes, and tank liners. Capital investments (other than
equipment purchases) include costs of the initial trivalent
chromium solution, disposal of the hexavalent chromium solution,
and cleaning of the hexavalent chromium plating tank. The
capital recovery costs for these items were calculated by the
equation above, but, instead of the life of the equipment, a loan
life of 10 years was assumed.
For new facilities, the incremental capital cost to instaill
the trivalent chromium process instead of the hexavalent chromium
process includes a credit for not installing wastewater treatment
equipment that reduces the hexavalent chromium to trivalent
chromium. These credits were spread over 10 years. These annual
credits were then subtracted from the capital recovery costs to
obtain a net capital recovery cost for each model plant.
G.8 INCREMENTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRIVALENT
CHROMIUM PROCESS
The incremental annualized costs associated with the
trivalent chromium process were calculated by adding the capital
recovery costs to the incremental annual cost or savings per year
associated with the operation of a trivalent chromium plating
process at each model plant. The incremental annualized costs
for all three scenarios are presented in Table G-14.
G-14
-------
a
H
cd
w
EH
En
H
Q
H
CO
o co
u co
w o
25 0
H DJ
2 ft
H 5*
s p
W H
Q 2
O
0 OJ
P
w H
CO Z
D W
.. ^J
EL! >
P H
O Crf
2H
CO §
O rtl
u
w z
H iJ
J «!
>
g ^
H EL!
h ffi
13 ixi
Qj hri
WOH
> J5
H Ell
EH Etl
O
u
H
i
O
CH
RODUCTION FACTORS
o.
. END-PRODUCT PARAMETERS
<
^_ ^
3
tf
i
*3
H
_
3
£" 2"
- -
1 1
DC ao
.S .5
^^ >-^
a 3
£ £
3 '§
5 5 5 5 5 s H
o. o. a. o. o. ^ i.
z z z z z 3 J,
_ — — — — _- ^^
Eft 2
I* H*
« ! ! 5 E s I
S ! | o | | | H
iMSMId
siz^^zSSg
^_ t_ tt 1 1 L_ tU UU
ofi ^c ^* 5 ^
ttu«oa.<
V) t/l
O O
U U
R+6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT
R+3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT
R+6 CHEMICAL COSTS, $/AH
R+3 CHEMICAL COSTS, J/AH
U U U O
G-15
-------
*O
§
C
•H
C
o
u
*"••"''
,
H
i
o
w
EH
tODUCTION FACTORS
£
H
0.
Z
IN ELECTRICAL COSTS, S^CWH
PRODUCTION PARAMETERS
I Q
H H H H
= 3 3 3
0.0. 0. 0.
Z Z Z Z
f
I
» 1
3
ii f
"• S 1 •* "
i a w o a §
: 1 B 1 | g
Jill |
eZ X H H X a.
- • J> oi ri UJ
I
sf 8.?
Jtlf I
S -8 s 1 "S
S -S * 1 8
8 1 ,8 -a *
Ills 1
X X X X g
>s >\ >s >s "*"
llll i
1 1 3 1 *
S Z S S S
e e a c 1
1 1 1 1 §
llll I
a. a. a. a. 3
llll a
1 1 1 1 «
a a a a i
•1 -1 1 -1 a
a a a a =
•S •§ o o £
llll !
^^^^ 1
§ S § S 1
Ss
I
1 ^
fit1 2 M S?
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROi
Maximum surface area per year, ftZ/)
. Total * of parts produced, parts/yr
No. of once-through parts, parts/yr
. No. of rework parts (parts processed
TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCE;
- « -° ° "° . as as
llll
« a. s. &
_ tg tf ^3
Q i- ta u-
1 1 1 1
3 ** +* M
•3 a 3 s
*•! 1 1
8 a. a a
i a a a
.3333
i 1 ! 1
a 2 Z S
sill
•i a a a
a a a 3
J J J
llll
X > > >
.8 a S a
w
I
tj
j
. Maximum 41 of parts plated per year,
Total f of parts produced, parts/yr
. No. of once-through parts, parts/yr
No. of rework parts (parts processed
CHEMICAL COST
.00-00 14.
£T
•*
S
I
•ft
1
*• ^,
1 s
Ii
2 "3
3 _
f 1
8. j
« 3
5=: .i
^ CN
< S.
f l"
O O
1 1
C S
II
S E
3 3
'i i
o o
-? -=
(hexavalenl
(hexavalent
II
z" z'
o o
EXAVALENT CHROMIUM SOLUTl
EXAVALENT CHROMIUM SOLUTl
X X
G-16
-------
i •*
•o
0)
3
.U
a
o
u
O
B
I
PLATING
NU
E
s
O
§
i
-------
•O
0)
3
a
•H
JJ
e
o
u
o
w
UCTION FACTOR
PR
I
U
C
•s
lilli H
• -
s.
1
00
H
i
O
G-18
-------
TABLE G-2. END-PRODUCT (PART) PARAMETERS
End products
A.
B.
Ratchets
Faucets
Bumpers
End-oroduct oarameters
1.
2.
3.
4.
Current density, A/ft2
Plating time, min
Surface area of part, ft2
Plating thickness, mil
50
3.00
0.128
0.001
125
3.55
0.540
0.00031
200
2.25
12.81
0.014
Calculated parameters
1.
2.
f\
Ampere - hours /f tz
(Al + A2/60)
Ampere-hours/part (B3 + Al)
2.50
0.32
7.40
3.99
7.50
96.08
G-19
-------
TABLE G-3. MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS USED AS INPUTS
FOR THE PLATING LINE COST MODEL
Model plant size
Parameter
No. of plating lines
Plating tank capacity, gal
Operating time, hr/yr
Percent time electrodes are
energized, %
Small
1
1,730 2 C
2,000
60
Medium
2
9 1,730 5 G
4,000
60
Large
5
» 4,580
6,000
60
Total fan horsepower requirements,
hp 10 20 35
Chromium wastewater flow rate,
gal/min per plating line 6 6 12
G-20
-------
TABLE G-4. COST FACTORS USED IN THE COST MODEL
Factor Cost
Wastewater treatment costs. S/l.OOO gal
Hexavalent chromium process 0.75
Trivalent chromium process 0.34
Chemical cost. $/Ah
Hexavalent chromium process 0.00052
Trivalent chromium process 0.007
Fan electrical cost. $/kWh 0.0461
G-21
-------
TABLE G-5. PRODUCTION RATE PARAMETERS FOR THE SELECTED
PARTS USED IN THE COST MODEL11'13
Production parameters
•Tank capacity, gala
No. of components*3
No. of racks /hr
Ratchets
1,800
1
108
End products
Faucets
1,550
3
2 components @ 13
Bumpers
16,1(30
1
47
No. of parts/rack
Rack capacity of plating
tank
40
1 component @ 2
2 components @ 21
1 component @ 110
10
3
aPlating tank capacity that formed the basis for the production
parameters.
^Refers to the number of components the part is plated in before
assembling into one part.
G-22
-------
TABLE G-6. MODEL PLANT PRODUCTION RATES
Production rates, parts/yr
Model plant size
Small Medium Large
Ratchets. 5,200,000 20,700,000
Faucets 10,080 404,330
Bumpers -- -- 2,700,000
G-23
-------
TABLE G-7. PLATING LINE COST DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE TRIVALENT
CHROMIUM PROCESS AND THE HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
AT VARIOUS REWORK RATES, $/ft2
Hexavalent
chromium
.Model plant size; End-product13
rework rates,
percenta
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Small:
Ratchets
-0.015
-0.007
0.001
0.010
0.018
0.027
0.036
0.045
0.054
0.064
Small:
Faucets
-0.029
-0.021
-0.013
-0.004
0.005
0.014
0.023
0.032
0.042
0.052
Medium:
Ratchets
-0.015
-0.007
0.001
0.010
0.018
0.027
0.036
0.045
0.054
0.064
Medium:
Faucets
-0.029
-0.021
-0.013
-0.004
0.005
0.014
0.023
0.032
0.042
0.052
Large; :
Bumpers
-0.049
-0.041
-0.032
-0.024
-0.015
-0.007
0.002
0.011
0.021
0.030
aThe trivalent chromium rework rate remained constant at
1 percent.
^Negative values represent an increase in cost associated with
the trivalent chromium process.
G-24
-------
TABLE G-8. SCENARIO I-PLATING LINE COSTS FOR EACH MODEL PLANT
BASED ON THE ACTUAL HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM REWORK RATES
PRODUCTION FACTORS
A. END-PRODUCT PARAMETERS
PART PLATED
PLATING TIME, MIN
CURRENT DENSITY, A/FT2
SURFACE AREA OF PART, FT2
PLATING THICKNESS, MILS
AMPERE-HOURS/FT2
AMPERE-HOURS/PART
B. MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS
NO. OF PLATING LINES
OPERATING TIME, H/YR
% TIME ELECTRODES ARE ENERGIZED, %
FAN HORSEPOWER REQUIREMENT, HP
CHROMIUM WASTEWATER FLOW RATE, GPM/PLATING LINE
C. COST PARAMETERS
CR+6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS, $/1000 GAL
CR+3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS, $71000 GAL
CR+6 CHEMICAL COSTS, $/AH
CR+3 CHEMICAL COSTS, $/AH
FAN ELECTRICAL COSTS, $/KWH
MODEL PLANT SIZE
SMALL
Ratchets
3.00
50.00
0.128
0.011
2.50
0.32
1
2000
60
10
6
0.75
0.34
0.00052
0.007
0.0461
MEDIUM
Faucets
3.55
125.00
0.540
0.00031
7.40
3.99
2
4000
60
20
6
0.75
0.34
0.00052
0.007
0.0461
LARGE
Bumpers
2.25
200.00
12.810
0.014
7.50
96.08
5
6000
60
35
12
0.75
0.34
0.00052
0.007
0.0461
G-25
-------
TABLE G-8 (Continued)
PRODUCTION FACTORS
D. PRODUCTION PARAMETERS
1. REWORK RATES
a) Hexavalent Chromium Process, %
b) Trivalent Chromium Process, %
2. TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PRODUCTIVITY INCREASE, %
3. HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION RATE, PARTS/YR
E. PRODUCTION RATES
1 . HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a. Maximum surface area per year, ft2/yr
b. Total # of parts produced, parts/yr
c. No. of once-through parts, parts/yr
d. No. of rework parts (parts processed twice), parts/yr
2. TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a. Maximum surface area per year, ft2/yr
b. Maximum # of parts plated per year, parts/yr
c. Total tt of parts produced, parts/yr
d. No. of once-through parts, parts/yr
e. No. of rework parts (parts processed twice), parts/yr
F. CHEMICAL COST
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM SOLUTION, $/FT2
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM SOLUTION, $/PART
TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS, $/FT2
TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS, S/PART
MODEL PLANT SIZE
SMALL
1.000
1.0
20
5.20E+06
6.66E+05
5.15E+06
5.10E+06
5.20E+04
7.99E+05
6.24E+06
6.18E+06
6.12E+06
6.24E+04
0.0013
0.0002
0.0175
0.0022
MEDIUM
3.000
1.0
20
4.04E+05
2.18E+05
3.92E+05
3.80E-K)5
1.21E+04
2.62E+05
4.85E+05
4.80E+05
- 4.75E+05
4.85E+03
0.0038
0.0021
0.0518
0.0280
LARGE
15.00D
1.0
20
2.70E+06
3.46E-KI7
2.30E-K)6
1.89E+06
4.05E-M)5
4.15E+37
3.24E-I-06
3.21E+06
3.18E+06
3.24E-t04
0.0039
o.o:>oo
0.0:525
0.6725
G-26
-------
TABLE G-8 (Continued)
PRODUCTION FACTORS
G. ANNUAL PLATING COST
1. UNIT PLATING COSTS
a. Hexavalent Chromium Process
l)plating cost, $/part
2)plating cost, $/ft2
3)rework plating cost, $/part
b. Trivalent Chromium Process
l)plating cost, $/part
2)plating cost, $/ft2
3)rework plating cost, $/part
2. ANNUAL PLATING COSTS
a. Hexavalent Chromium Process
l)plating costs — once-through parts, $/yr
2)plating costs — rework, $/yr
3)annual plating costs, $/yr
b. Trivalent Chromium Process
Opiating costs — once-through parts, $/yr
2)plating costs — rework, $/yr
3)annual plating costs, $/yr
H. WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS
1. HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a) Wastewater volumes, gal/yr
b) Treatment costs, $/yr
2. TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a) Wastewater volumes, gaL/yr
b) Treatment costs, $/yr
MODEL PLANT SIZE
SMALL
$0.100
$0.780
0.200
$0.102
0.796
0.204
$508,581
$10,379
$518,960
$623,139
$12,717
$635,856
720,000
$540
720,000
$240
MEDIUM
$0.421
$0.780
0.842
$0.447
0.828
0.894
$160,085
$10,218
$170,303
$212,592
$4,339
$216,931
2,880,000
$2,160
2,880,000
$970
LARGE
$9.992
$0.780
19.984
$10.614
0.829
21.229
$18,884,502
$8,093,358
$26,977,860
$33,702,843
$687,813
$34,390,656
21,600,000
$16,200
21,600,000
$7,290
G-27
-------
TABLE G-8 (Continued)
PRODUCTION FACTORS
I. FAN ELECTRICAL COSTS
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a) Fan electrical usage, kWh/yr
b) Fan electrical costs, $/yr
J. PLATING LINE COSTS
1. HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a)annual plating costs, $/yr
b) waste water treatment costs, $/yr
c)fan electrical costs, $/yr
d)total plating line costs, $/yr
e)total plating line costs, $/part
2. TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a)annual plating costs, $/yr
b)wastewater treatment costs, $/yr
c)total plating line cost, $/yr
d)total plating line costs, $/pan
COST DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE PROCESSES, S/PART (a)
COST DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE PROCESSES, S/FT2 (b)
ANNUAL COST DIFFERENTIAL, J/YR (c)
MODEL PLANT SIZE
SMALL
14,920
$688
$518,960
$540
$688
$520, 188
0.1010
$635,856
$240
$636,096
0.1030
-0.0020
-0.0156
($10,300)
MEDIUM
59,680
$2,751
$170,303
$2,160
$2,751
$175,214
0.4467
$216,931
$970
$217,901
0.4536
-0.0070
-0.0130
($2,700)
LARGE
156,660
$7,222
$26,977,860
$16200
$7222
$27,001.282
11.7653
$34,390,656
$7,290
$34,397,946
10.7239
1.0410
0.0813
$2,389,100
(a) Obtained from G.l.e minus G.2.d Numbers were independently rounded.
(b) Obtained by dividing the $/part value by the surface area of the part.
(c) Based on hexavalent chromium production rates.
G-28
-------
TABLE G-9. SCENARIO II-PLATING LINE COSTS FOR EACH MODEL PLANT
BASED ON THE AVERAGE HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM REWORK RATES
PRODUCTION FACTORS
A. END-PRODUCT PARAMETERS
PART PLATED
PLATING TIME, MIN
CURRENT DENSITY, A/FT2
SURFACE AREA OF PART, FT2
PLATING THICKNESS, MILS
AMPERE-HOURS/FT2
AMPERE-HOURS/PART
B. MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS
NO. OF PLATING LINES
OPERATING TIME, H/YR
% TIME ELECTRODES ARE ENERGIZED, %
FAN HORSEPOWER REQUIREMENT, HP
CHROMIUM WASTEWATER FLOW RATE, GPM/PLATING LINE
C. COST PARAMETERS
CR+6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS, $/1000 GAL
CR+3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS, S/1000 GAL
CR+6 CHEMICAL COSTS, J/AH
CR+3 CHEMICAL COSTS, $/AH
FAN ELECTRICAL COSTS, S/KWH
MODEL PLANT SIZE
SMALL
Ratchets
3.00
50.00
0.128
0.011
2.50
0.32
1
2000
60
10
6
0.75
0.34
0.00052
0.007
0.0461
MEDIUM
Faucets
3.55
125.00
0.540
0.00031
7.40
3.99
2
4000
60
20
6
0.75
0.34
0.00052
0.007
0.0461
LARGE
Bumpers
2.25
200.00
12.810
0.014
7.50
96.08
5
6000
60
35
12
0.75
0.34
0.00052
0.007
0.0461
G-29
-------
TABLE G-9 (Continued)
PRODUCTION FACTORS
D. PRODUCTION PARAMETERS
1. REWORK RATES
a) Hexavalent Chromium Process, %
b) Trivalent Chromium Process, %
2. TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PRODUCTIVITY INCREASE, %
3. HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION RATE, PARTS/YR
E. PRODUCTION RATES
1. HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a. Maximum surface area per year, ft2/yr
b. Total # of parts produced, parts/yr
c. No. of once-through parts, parts/yr
d. No. of rework parts (parts processed twice), parts/yr
2. TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a. Maximum surface area per year, ft2/yr
b. Maximum # of parts plated per year, parts/yr
c. Total # of parts produced, parts/yr
d. No. of once-through parts, parts/yr
e. No. of rework parts (parts processed twice), parts/yr
F. CHEMICAL COST
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM SOLUTION, $/FT2
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM SOLUTION, S/PART
TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS, $/FT2
TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS, $/PART
MODEL PLANT SIZE
SMALL
7.000
1.0
20
5.20E-K)6
6.66E+05
4.84E+06
4.47E+06
3.64E+05
7.99E+05
6.24E+06
6.18E+06
6.12E+06
6.24E+04
0.0013
0.0002
0.0175
0.0022
MEDIUM
7.000
1.0
20
4.04E+05
2. 18E+05
3.76E+05
3.48E+05
2.83E+04
2.62E+05
4.85E+05
4.80E+05
4.75E+05
4.85E+03
0.0038
0.0021
0.0518
0.0280
LARGE
7.COO
1.0
20
2.70E-»06
3.46Et07
2.51E-»06
2.32E-t06
1.89E-t05
4.15E-I07
3.24EH06
3.21E-I06
3.18E^6
3.24E1-04
O.OCI39
O.OfiOO
0.0fi25
0.6725
G-30
-------
TABLE G-9 (Continued)
PRODUCTION FACTORS
G. ANNUAL PLATING COST
1. UNIT PLATING COSTS
a. Hexavalent Chromium Process
l)plating cost, $/part
2)plating cost, $/ft2
3)rework plating cost, $/part
b. Trivalent Chromium Process
Opiating cost, $/part
2)plating cost, $/ft2
3)rcwork plating cost, $/part
2. ANNUAL PLATING COSTS
a. Hexavalent Chromium Process
l)plating costs — once-through parts, $/yr
2)plating costs — rework, $/yr
3)annual plating costs, $/yr
b. Trivalent Chromium Process
l)plating costs — once-through parts, $/yr
2)plating costs — rework, $/yr
3)annual plating costs, $/yr
H. WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS
1. HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a) Wastewater volumes, gal/yr
b) Treatment costs, $/yr
2. TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a) Wastewater volumes, gal/yr
b) Treatment costs, $/yr
MODEL PLANT SIZE
SMALL
$0.100
$0.780
0.200
$0.102
0.796
0.204
$446,306
$72,654
$518,960
$623,139
$12,717
$635,856
720,000
$540
720,000
$240
MEDIUM
$0.421
$0.780
0.842
$0.447
0.828
0.894
$146,461
$23,842
$170,303
$212,592
$4,339
$216,931
2,880,000
$2,160
2,880,000
$970
LARGE
$9.992
$0.780
19.984
$10.614
0.829
21.229
$23,200,960
$3,776,900
$26,977,860
$33,702,843
$687,813
$34,390,656
21,600,000
$16,200
21,600,000
$7,290
G-31
-------
TABLE G-9 (Continued)
PRODUCTION FACTORS
I. FAN ELECTRICAL COSTS
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a) Fan electrical usage, kWh/yr
b) Fan electrical costs, $/yr
J. PLATING LINE COSTS
1. HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a)annual plating costs, $/yr
b)wastewater treatment costs, $/yr
c)fan electrical costs, $/yr
d)total plating line costs, $/yr
e)total plating line costs, $/part
2. TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a)annual plating costs, $/yr
b)wastewater treatment costs, $/yr
c)total plating line cost, $/yr
d)total plating line costs, $/part
COST DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE PROCESSES, S/PART (a)
COST DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE PROCESSES, $/FT2 (b)
ANNUAL COST DIFFERENTIAL, $/YR (c)
MODEL PLANT SIZE
SMALL
14,920
$688
$518,960
$540
$688
$520,188
0.1076
$635,856
$240
$636,096
0. 1030
0.0050
0.0391
$24,200
MEDIUM
59,680
$2,751
$170,303
$2,160
$2,751
$175,214
0.4660
$216,931
$970
$217,901
0.4536
0.0120
0.0222
$4,500
LARGE
156,660
$7,222
$26,977,860
$16,200
$7,222
$27,001,282
10.7532
$34,390,656
$7,290
$34,39'',946
10.7239
00290
0.0023
$72,800
(a) Obtained from G.l.e minus G.2.d. Numbers were independently rounded.
(b) Obtained by dividing the $/part value by the surface area of the part.
(c) Based on hexavalent chromium production rates.
G-32
-------
TABLE G-10. SCENARIO III-PLATING LINE COSTS FOR EACH MODEL PLANT
BASED ON THE BREAK-EVEN HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM REWORK RATES
PRODUCTION FACTORS
A. END-PRODUCT PARAMETERS
PART PLATED
PLATING TIME, MIN
CURRENT DENSITY, A/FT2
SURFACE AREA OF PART, FT2
PLATING THICKNESS, MILS
AMPERE-HOURS/FT2
AMPERE-HOURS/PART
B. MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS
NO. OF PLATING LINES
OPERATING TIME, H/YR
% TIME ELECTRODES ARE ENERGIZED, %
FAN HORSEPOWER REQUIREMENT, HP
CHROMIUM WASTEWATER FLOW RATE, GPM/PLATING LINE
C. COST PARAMETERS
CR+6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS. J/1000 GAL
CR+3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS, $71000 GAL
CR+6 CHEMICAL COSTS, $/AH
CR+3 CHEMICAL COSTS, $/AH
FAN ELECTRICAL COSTS, $/KWH
MODEL PLANT SIZE
SMALL
Ratchets
3.00
50.00
0.128
0.011
2.50
0.32
1
2000
60
10
6
0.75
0.34
0.00052
0.007
0.0461
MEDIUM
Faucets
3.55
125.00
0.540
0.00031
7.40
3.99
2
4000
60
20
6
0.75
0.34
0.00052
0.007
0.0461
LARGE
Bumpers
2.25
200.00
12.810
0.014
7.50
96.08
5
6000
60
35
12
0.75
0.34
0.00052
0.007
0.0461
G-33
-------
TABLE G-10 (Continued)
PRODUCTION FACTORS
D. PRODUCTION PARAMETERS
1. REWORK RATES
a) Hexavalent Chromium Process, %
b) Trivalent Chromium Process, %
2. TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PRODUCTIVITY INCREASE, %
3. HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM MAXIMUM
PRODUCTION RATE, PARTS/YR
E. PRODUCTION RATES
1. HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a. Maximum surface area per year, ft2/yr
b. Total # of parts produced, parts/yr
c. No. of once-through parts, parts/yr
d. No. of rework parts (parts processed twice), parts/yr
2. TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a. Maximum surface area per year, ft2/yr
b. Maximum # of parts plated per year, parts/yr
c. Total # of parts produced, parts/\r
d. No. of once-through parts, parts/\r
e. No. of rework parts (parts processed twice), parts/yr
F. CHEMICAL COST
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM SOLUTION, S/FT2
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM SOLUTION, S/PART
TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS, S/FT2
TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS, S/PART
MODEL PLANT SIZE
SMALL
2.850
1.0
20
5.20E-K)6
6.66E+05
5.05E+06
4.90E+06
1.48E+05
7.99E+05
6.24E+06
6.18E+06
6.12E+06
6.24E+04
0.0013
0.0002
0.0175
0.0022
MEDIUM
4.500
1.0
20
4.04E+05
2.18E+05
3.86E+05
3.68E405
1.82E-K)4
2.62E-K)5
4.85E+05
4.80E+05
4.75E-»05
4.85E+03
0.0038
0.0021
0.0518
0.0280
LARGE
6.750
1.0
20
2.70E+06
3.46E+07
2.52E+06
2.34E+06
1.82E-KJ5
4.15E+07
3.24E+06
3.21E+06
3.18E+06
3.24E+04
O.C039
O.C500
O.C525
0.6725
G-34
-------
TABLE G-10 (Continued)
PRODUCTION FACTORS
G. ANNUAL PLATING COST
1. UNIT PLATING COSTS
a. Hexavalent Chromium Process
l)plating cost, $/part
2)plating cost, $/ft2
3)rework plating cost, $/part
b. Trivalent Chromium Process
l)plating cost, $/part
2)plating cost, $/ft2
3)rework plating cost, $/part
2. ANNUAL PLATING COSTS
a. Hexavalent Chromium Process
l)plating costs — once-through parts, $/yr
2)plating costs — rework, $/yr
3)annual plating costs, $/yr
b. Trivalent Chromium Process
l)plating costs — once-through parts, $/yr
2)plating costs — rework, $/yr
3)annual plating costs, $/yr
H. WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS
1. HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a) Wastewater volumes, gal/yr
b) Treatment costs, $/yr
2. TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a) Wastewater volumes, gal/yr
b) Treatment costs, $/yr
MODEL PLANT SIZE
SMALL
$0.100
$0.780
0.200
$0.102
0.796
0.204
$489,379
$29,581
$518,960
$623,139
$12,717
$635,856
720,000
$540
720,000
$240
MEDIUM
$0.421
$0.780
0.842
$0.447
0.828
0.894
$154,976
$15,327
$170,303
$212,592
$4,339
$216,931
2,880,000
$2,160
2,880,000
$970
LARGE
$9.992
$0.780
19.984
$10.614
0.829
21.229
$23,335,849
$3,642,011
$26,977,860
$33,702,843
$687,813
$34,390,656
21,600,000
$16,200
21,600,000
$7,290
G-35
-------
TABLE G-10 (Continued)
PRODUCTION FACTORS
I. FAN ELECTRICAL COSTS
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a) Fan electrical usage, kWh/yr
b) Fan electrical costs, $/yr
J. PLATING LINE COSTS
1. HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a)annual plating costs, $/yr
b)wastewater treatment costs, $/yr
c)fan electrical costs, $/yi
d)total plating line costs, $/yr
e)total plating line costs, $/part
2. TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
a)annual plating costs, $/yr
b)wastewater treatment costs, $/yr
c)total plating line cost, $/yr
d)total plating line costs, $/part
COST DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE PROCESSES, $/PART (a)
COST DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE PROCESSES, $/FT2 (b)
ANNUAL COST DIFFERENTIAL, $/YR (c)
MODEL PLANT SIZE
SMALL
14,920
$688
$518,960
$540
$688
$520,188
0.1030
$635,856
$240
$636,096
0.1030
0.0000
0.0000
$0
MEDIUM
59,680
$2,751
$170,303
$2,160
$2,751
$175,214
0.4538
$216,931
$970
$217,901
0.4536
0.0000
0.0000
$0
LAEXJE
156,660
$7,222
$26,977,860
$16,200
$7,222
$27,001,282
107244
$34,390,656
$7,290
$34,397,946
10.7239
0.0000
0.0000
$0
(a) Obtained from G. l.e minus G.2.d. Numbers were independently rounded.
(b) Obtained by dividing the $/part value by the surface area of the part.
(c) Based on hexavalent chromium production rates.
G-36
-------
TABLE G-ll. INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COST ASSOCIATED WITH INSTALLING
A TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS INSTEAD OF A HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
PROCESS AT NEW PLANTS
Model plant
Component
Startup (plating tank[s]) costa
Initial passivation solution
Subtotal
Purchased equipment cost
Ampere-hour controller
Anode boxes0
Chillers01
Filter01
Subtotal
Taxes and freight6
TOTAL
Installation'
Indirect costs^
Total cost
Wastewater treatment cost
savings"
Net costk
Small
2,800
500
3,300
1,600
7,800
9,300
7.600
26,300
2.100
28,400
4,300
8,800
44,800
-19,600!
25,200
Medium
5,500
1.000
6,500
3,200
15,600
18,600
15.200
52,600
4.200
56,800
8,500
17,600
89,400
-29,400^
60,000
size
Large
27,500
6.500
34,000
8,000
39,000
71,000
54.500
172,500
13.800
186,300
27,900
57,800
306,000
-41,400^
264,600
aStartup costs for new plants would consist only of the
incremental cost of the trivalent chromium bath solution over
the hexavalent chromium bath solution. The cost differential
between the trivalent chromium plating solution and the
hexavalent plating solution is $1.60 per gallon of plating
solution for the small and medium model plants and $1.20 per
gallon for the large model plant.1
"Passivation solution is required for some trivalent chromium
processes.
^Anode boxes are required for all double-cell processes.
"Optional equipment.
eTaxes and freight are estimated to be 3 and 5 percent of the
base equipment cost, respectively.
fInstallation costs are based on 15 percent of the purchased
equipment costs.
^Indirect costs include costs associated with engineering and
supervision (10 percent), process startup (1 percent), and
contingencies (20 percent), and are based on 31 percent of the
purchased equipment costs.
"Represents the capital cost of a hexavalent chromium reduction
.unit for the wastewater volume associated with each model plant.
•j-Batch process.
^Continuous process.
*The total capital cost is not solely attributable to air
pollution control but also to process improvement.
G-37
-------
TABLE G-12. CAPITAL COST OF CONVERTING HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
PROCESS TO TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS AT EXISTING FACILITIES
Component
Startup (tank conversion) a
Initial trivalent chromium
solution purchase
Initial passivation solution
purchase
Waste disposal cost of
hexavalent chromium solution
Subtotal
Purchased equipment cost
Ampere-hour meter
Tank liner
Replacement anodes and hangers
Anode boxes
Chiller13
Filter13
Subtotal
Taxes and freight0
TOTAL
Installation/modification^
Indirect6
Total cost*
Model
Small
10,900
500
3.700
15,100
1,600
2,200
3,300
7,800
9,300
7.600
31,800
2.500
34,300
6,900
10,600
66,900
plant size
Medium
21,800
1,000
7.400
30,200
3,200
4,400
6,600
15,600
18,600
15.200
63,600
5.100
68,700
13,700
21,300
133,900
Large
136,500
6,500
41.000
184,000
8,000
18,000
43,500
39,000
71,000
54.500
234,000
18,700
252,700
50,500
78,300
565,500
aStartup costs include the initial makeup of the trivalent
chromium solution and the disposal cost of the hexavalent
chromium plating solution.
^Optional equipment.
GTaxes and freight are estimated to be 3 and 5 percent of the
base equipment cost, respectively.
dlnstallation/modification costs are based on 20 percent of
purchased equipment costs.
eIndirect costs include costs associated with engineering and
supervision (10 percent), process startup (1 percent), and
contingencies (20 percent), and are estimated to be 31 percent
of the purchased equipment cost.
fThe total capital cost is not solely attributable to air
pollution control but also to process improvement.
G-38
-------
TABLE G-13. CAPITAL RECOVERY COSTS FOR EACH MODEL PLANT
REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH NEW AND EXISTING FACILITIES
Model plant size
Capital recovery costs, $/yr
Small
Medium
Large
Existing facility
New facility
13,200
6,000
26,300
3,400
108,900
54,000
G-39
-------
TABLE G-14. INCREMENTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
USE OF THE TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS
Model plant size: End-producta
Small:
Ratchets
Medium:
Faucets
Large::
Bumpers
Annualized cost components
Capital recovery values, $/yr
1. Existing facility
2. New facility
Process cost differential. $/vr
1. Scenario 1
2. Scenario 2C
3. Scenario 3
13,200
6,000
10,300
(24,200)
0
26,300
13,400
2,700
(4,500)
0
108,900
54,000
(2,389,100)
(72,800)
0
Incrernental annualized costs. $/vr
1.
2.
3.
Scenario 1
a. Existing facility
b. New facility
Scenario 2
a. Existing facility
b. New facility
Scenario 3
a. Existing facility
b. New facility
23,500
16,300
(11,000)
(18,200)
13,200
6,000
29,000
16,100
21,800
8,900
26,300
13,400
(2,280,200)
(2,335,100)
36,100
(18,800)
108,900
54,000
aParentheses indicate a cost savings.
^Hexavalent chromium reject rate was set at the value given by
the plants that produce the end product selected.
GHexavalent chromium reject rate was set at the average of the
values given by the plants.
^Hexavalent chromium reject rate was set so that a process cost
differential of zero was obtained.
G-40
-------
G.9 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX G
l. Cost Enclosure for Decorative Chromium Electroplating
Processes: Vendor F. Prepared for U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
June 22, 1987. pp. 2-3.
2. Cost Enclosure for Decorative Chromium Electroplating
Processes: Vendor E. Prepared for U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
June 5, 1987. pp. 2-3.
3. Cost Enclosure for Decorative Chromium Electroplating
Processes: Vendor H. Prepared for U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
June 22, 1987. pp. 2-3.
4. Cost Enclosure for Decorative Chromium Electroplating
Processes: Vendor D. Prepared for U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
June 18, 1987. pp. 2-3.
5. Memo from Barker, R., MRI, to Smith, Andrew, EPA/ISB.
May 20, 1988. Trip report for Lufkin Rule, Apex, North
Carolina.
6. Memo from Barker, R., MRI, to Smith, Andrew, EPA/ISB.
May 20, 1988. Trip report for Plant ABC, Southeastern
United States.
7. Memo from Barker, R., MRI, to Smith, Andrew, EPA/ISB.
May 20, 1988. Trip report for Swaim Metals, High Point,
North Carolina.
8. Memo from Barker, R., MRI to Smith, Andrew, EPA/ISB.
May 20, 1988. Trip report for Universal Gym and Nissan
Company, Cedar Rapids,-Iowa.
9. Memo from Barker, R., MRI to Smith, Andrew, EPA/ISB.
May 20, 1988. Trip report for Custom Processing Company,
High Point, North Carolina.
10. Telecon. Barker, R., MRI, to Vendor F. September 30, 1987,
Information on plating facilities using trivalent chromium
processes.
11. Section 114 Information Request Response, SK Hand Tools
Corporation, Defiance, Ohio. March 6, 1989. Process and
cost data information on decorative chromium plating of
ratchets.
G-41
-------
12. Section 114 Information Request Response, Delta Faucet
Corporation, Greensburg, Indiana. March 31, 1989. Process
and cost data information on decorative chromium plating of
faucets.
13. Section 114 Information Request Response, Delco Products
Division, General Motors Corporation, Livonia, Michigan.
June 6, 1989. Process and cost data information on
decorative chromium plating of bumpers.
14. Telecon. Barker, R., MRI, to Olson, L., Snap-On-Tools,
Kenosha, Wisconsin. December 4, 1989. Information on
chromium wastewater treatment volumes.
15. Telecon. Barker, R., MRI, to Stevens, J., Stanley Tools
Division, New Britain, Connecticut. December 4, 1989.
Information on chromium wastewater treatment volumes.
16. Telecon. Barker, R., MRI, to Beck, P., MAB International,
Inc., Austin, Texas. December 18, 1989. Information on
chromium wastewater treatment costs.
17. Telecon. Barker, R., MRI, to Delmont, T., Wastewater
Systems Engineering, West Bridgewater, Massachusetts.
December 15, 1989. Information on hexavalent chromium
wastewater treatment costs.
18. Monthly Energy Review. Energy Information Administration,
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. October 1988.
19. Telecon. Barker, R., MRI, to Sharpies, T., OMI™/Udylite
International Corporation, Michigan. December 4, 1989.
Information on plating equipment life.
G-42
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
PRODUCTION RATE CALCULATIONS
G-43
-------
PRODUCTION RATE CALCULATIONS BASED ON THE PLATING OF RATCHETS
The following production rate parameters were obtained from
the plant that plated ratchets:
No
No. of racks per hour = 108
. of ratchets per rack =40
This information is based on a chromium plating tank with a
capacity of 1,800 gallons. This tank has approximately the same.
capacity as the model plating tanks (1,730 gallons) used in the
small and medium model plants. Therefore, the production rates
of ratchets at the small and medium model plants are computed
from the following equation:
No. of ratchets/yr = (No. of racks/hr)(No. of ratchets/rack)
{No. of plating tanks)(operating time, hr/yr)(percent time
electrodes are energized)
Small model plant parameters Medium model plant parameters
No. of plating tanks =1 No. of plating lines = 2
Operating time, hr/yr = 2,000 Operating time, hr/yr = 4,000
Percent time electrodes are Percent time electrodes are
energized = 60 energized = 60
Small Model Plant - Production Rate Calculation
No. of ratchets/yr = (108 racks/hr)(40 ratchets/rack)
(1 plating tank)(2,000 hr/yr)(0.60) = 5,200,000 ratchets/yr
Medium Model Plant - Production Rate Calculation
No. of ratchets/yr = (108 racks/hr)(40 ratchets/rack)
(2 plating tanks)(4,000 hr/yr)(0.60) = 20,700,000 ratchets/yr
G-44
-------
PRODUCTION RATE CALCULATIONS BASED ON THE PLATING OF FAUCETS
The following production parameters were obtained from the
plant that plated faucets:
No. of components = 3
No. of racks/hr = 13 for 2 components
2 for 1 component
No. of parts/rack =21 for 2 components
110 for 1 component
These parameters are based on a plating tank with a capacity
of 1,550 gallons. This capacity is similar to the capacity of
the model plating tanks (1,730 gallons) used in the small and
medium model plants. Therefore, these parameters can be used to
determine the production rate for the model plants.
To obtain an equal number of components so that an
equivalent number of faucets can be assembled, the amount of
operating time the plating tank is devoted to the production of
each component needs to be determined. Three equations were
developed for determining the operating time devoted to each
component and the -subsequent production rate of each component.
These equations are shown below:
Equation 1
2(x) + y = (operating time, hr/yr)(percent time electrodes are
energized),
Equation 2
(No. of racks/hr)(No. of parts/rack)(x) = z, and
Equation 3
(No. of racks/hr)(No. of parts/rack)(y) = z,
where, x = operating time for first 2 components,
y = operating time for third component, and
z = number of parts produced per year.
Small model plant parameters Medium model plant parameters
No. of plating tanks =1 No. of plating tanks = 2
Operating time, hr/yr = 2,000 Operating time, hr/yr = 4,000
Percent time electrodes are Percent time electrodes are
energized = 60 energized = 60
G-45
-------
Small Model Plant Production Rate
First solve equations 2 and 3 in terms of x and y:
Equation 2
(13)(21)(x) = z, therefore, x = z/273 and
Equation 3
(2)(110)(y) = z, therefore, y = z/220.
Then substitute these values for x and y into equation No. 1, and
solve for z:
2(z/273) + (z/220) = (2,000 hr/yr)(0.60),
z = 101,080 ratchets/year.
Then, solve equations 2 and 3 for x and y:
x = 101,080/273 and y = 101,080/220, or
x = 370 hr/yr and y = 460 hr/yr.
Medium Model Plant Production Rate
First solve equations 2 and 3 in terms of x and y, then
substitute these values for x and y into equation No. 1 and solve
for z:
2(z/273) + (z/220) = (4,000 hr/yr) (0.60), so
z = 202,165 parts/yr.
Then, solve equations 2 and 3 for x and y:
x = 202,165/273 and y = 202,165/220, or
x = 750 hr/yr and y = 920 hr/yr.
Multiply z by the number of plating tanks to determine the model
plant production rate for faucets:
Production rate, parts/yr = (202,165 parts/yr)(2) =
404,330 parts/yr.
G-46
-------
PRODUCTION RATE CALCULATIONS BASED ON THE PLATING OF BUMPERS
The following production parameters were obtained from the
plant that plated bumpers:
No. of racks/hr = 47
No. of bumpers/rack =10
No. of racks/tank = 3
The plating tank capacity that these production parameters
were based on is 16,160 gallons. The model plating tanks in the
large model plant have a capacity of 4,580 gallons. Therefore,
to obtain the production rate of bumpers at the large model
plant, it was estimated that each plating tank used in the large
model plant could only hold one rack of parts per tank instead of
three racks of parts per tank. The number of racks processed per
hour was then recalculated based on the rack capacity of the
model tank from the following equation:
(No. of racks/hr)/(rack capacity, racks/tank) for the actual
plant = (No. of racks/hr)/(rack capacity, racks/tank) for the
model plant.
Therefore,
(47 racks/hr)/(3 racks/tank) = (x racks/hr)/(I rack/tank), and
x = 15 racks/hr.
Large Model Plant Parameters
No. of plating tanks = 5
Operating time, hr/yr = 6,000
Percent time electrodes are energized = 60
Model Plant Production Rate for Bumpers
No. of bumpers per year = (No. of plating tanks)(No. of
racks/hr) (operating time, hr/yr)(percent time electrodes are
energized)(No. of bumpers/rack)
No. of bumpers per year = (5) (15) (6,000) (0.60) (10) =
2,700,000
G-47
-------
APPENDIX H.
NATIONWIDE IMPACT ANALYSIS
-------
APPENDIX H. NATIONWIDE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Tables H-l through H-3 present the nationwide emission
impact analyses for each control option for hard chromium
plating, decorative chromium plating, and chromic acid anodizing
operations. Tables H-4 through H-6 present the cost impact
analyses, and Tables H-7 through H-9 present the cost
effectiveness analyses for each control option associated with
these operations.
H-l
-------
i
I
Di
ffi
U
CO
DJ
O
ffi
CO
w
>
H
E-i
a<
<:
u
PQ
O
^
W
CO
E-"
U
H
CD
O
w
w
§
i '
§
V)
| S | 8
§_"
o~
\c
§00 o |2
~" V ^ p
i |
3 ^
1
K
§
^
| S S § |
«n" W
U
4
M i
^ - 1 i
{ J §• j E
illfl |
i 1 1 ^ i i
£ = s * z S
1 I 3
1 i ^
i »2
| i .
i :j |
1 1 s.
||,
ll1
f i |
Sol
u:
c _
•w —
.- c
0 =
'Z f —
H S u:
— K
- c c
"~ c _
C « t
OKU
U — k
^
f
t
i
|
g i
z 2"
" i
i I
M
? r4
p ^
S K.
z
1 B
£
M
i i
u.
a 0
^ •
S T
zr
e b-
?
.-• "-
i
t
^-
t c
<
c
I
1 <
I
]
I
r4oe«— r-ersgi cnr^igj
8 2 S S ££in|R S 8 SI S
2 - o 2 S"-1? p'^"l£
SY «| O IN «*» f»l IN O O «O| »
» M| it 1*1 o> «*il *o o v nl r-
« w») *•! « o voomlm
*ol o
t*) ^f OP O1 *n — oo
£' - * I" R "" -T 5 P" "" """ S
o§£;^ °§E;IJ °§si^
10 « «
§0010 M **» «j o S S SI S
^ w *** w Kl ? v V r§| e
^mvl— ooS2l^ ?SSl§
«" NC" _J1 V o^ o>" c-ij o* ts ri *o"| O
« .^ CN| ^i Kr>^|r^i r- P- c»l «
£HS SSS SSS
" " " o » 9 «-«•«•
c o c ooo £££
^^v- §^5 1*1
— — —
««r4io (nmvio mv^oto
S<5?SK SSS— vv«l^
f-, fl ^| O — 1 «"> ~
SSSI8 SS§|8 SSSI8
-^ _^
1 1 1
•E "s "E
JUS
t 1 I . I 1 i , ! !
! ! j i Hi]] | 1 ! 1 j
2
?
S
5
933,240
424,200
]
H-2
-------
3
C
•H
4J
C
O
o
w
.J
CO
£
K
8
f
1
|
I
8
i
p
^
&
t
B
5
2
<
]
|
I
i
S
I
I
i
O
|
i 1 rf
1 1 J
U*
H'
1 8
1 1 J
2 fl
0 t
w
n
. ±
"i * S
• • *fl
Z 3 UJ
•D -
— •:
a B
o j;
« fc
8 2.
S u
•^
i
-
i •
1 ^
^
M
1 (I l.H)-l
1 *A/«1
s -
i s
X
1°
?• *"*
U.
g£
S T
w
S
* 1
5
is °
^
1
jj
<
1-
I
£ S P ? 22PS S S H g
0 €> b ri n- „' fil g'
S 5 Kl ; » S tl ; 8 S £1 -•
• • 0.
! 1 SI i s S SI I 1 1 II §
a' s' 51 = s' 8 3 x 5 * =| 5
§ 1 §1 1 1 1 81 § § § II §
2 2 Hi X R R R| S p p s) |
222 555 SSS
S S S S S S 888
» » » S S a
K 5 5 1 SSAJ2 S V 21 S
S S SI 8 g S SI 8 g g SI 8
1 I j J I j
||| | 1 ] 1 ]]|
HI] i 1 1 1 i 3 !! 1 1
! i H 2 j i n I j 1 ] i j I i
s
*
p
*
R
r-'
|
g
$
I
H-3
-------
T3
Q)
4.)
O
U
w
9
li'll
Il'i!
1 1 1 g j
Z X
Jfl°
™
O J_
•O — tf
-co
» - o
• S ':-
Z « "•
. = E
Z 3 u
"5 •
- * _-
0 B J
e '• &•
0 w t.
3 u:
»f Operatiotu
1
1
£ B
-J fl
U.
s£
c Y
^ u
M
•-j T
0
S °
Tout
B^(A*No. Opci»ti)
2 <
I
i
££31$i 5 5 «| 5 ^?S*
dddld d d dl — d d — * ^1 ^* V V Ml O
"**"£* "^2 1 £ R R "1 fi
SS2| »5S|8 gg||
g: g: SI g; ? g g;| S g g: g:| S
a" S" 51 2" 8" 8" 5] §" R" R" =j S
«"«--] V »•* »•" P*| cT M" (s >o| o
eoo •»«« ooo
«•">•*>•
°°° 1 1 § III
SSSIg SSSI8 SSSI8
..Hi i.lll i.lll
1 s 5 s 3 £ k a i £ £ a « a
JIM 1 J M i j J i M
1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 H I 1 1 1 1 1 i
5
*
5
S
V
1
s
I
H-4
-------
-o
0)
-H
4J
c
o
u
_
i!1!?
Hill
Z " Jl
4 8 , «?
] 1 1 i |
z w -
H'f!
1(1-
u _
•Q « M'
— c c
» - 0
o • :
_ o —
• BE
Z 5 U
u
•o —
c c c
- ° -
c •; a.
O •"• O
c E a.
D u:
|
*S
1
i 1
""
11
* u
? •
— T
o
>•
u
*
•J
1 1
•
<
j<
oc 00 v ON fi m r- **> 9 >o| ^
-. ^ ft V-, v v *n v F- r-; 51 «
dodo' odd-- o d — | fsi
r* ^ ON ON (N O (NN«|O
d o' o* d odd— do o't «N
«»V>OO ON O> «| * VVfSIO
»— oo oo — 1 oo tftm—lw
— * — 1 M — — r*l v>
w r* <*>| O — . — _ M OpoiO
£ £ s| 5, R a a S P P 81 1
v{ v^* f— "1 flo* tn *rt* ^*| ^ tn t£ —\ to
i*i*^»l»- goeo«|OQ «ri»r>--lf*i
* — S| ' m ft 5il S P P SI §
S£2 5SS SSS
«. « -
sss III 111
— — —
VVMO fi«*ivo »nvi 01 o
SS§I8 gSSIS S S SI |
SSS E5? SSS
t t t I t i -lit
I
•V
1
1
I 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 1
•BTSTS £.. TTSTS « . TS 7J T!
| i | | | | | | | e | | | |
1 1 1 1 i J i 1 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 i
g
*
r«
R
S
V
i
s
1
5
1
H-5
-------
H
o
u
w
D
CO
PK
o
K
CO
H
E-<
O4
CO
W
u
H
O
§
p
W
CN
W
i -
s f
f *
Mi
HIM
Illll
lilt*
11111
111
s
II
EmMon
fete.
- I
i
f ?
- fe
_> r
Q
1- Z
NOOOlfi
3 S S « 5
1 5 5 » S
O O —
S *
SRRPIS
^ 06 » VJ «rt
' f -'
o o o c
o o o o
•z _
§ i s Si |
1 S 5 » S
= a a '-i P
O C O C?
s § § s?
(M (s rs r-4
,— « «>
01 V, VI
1
!
« E
H-6
-------
-o
0)
c
-H
4->
C
o
o
CN
ffi
1
O w k,
U •- o
= E a.
£ 2 S g| 3
e e o d| d
RPI
»rT (*T
q q o cs
\o « « «'
Moeoe — es
8 8
o 6 o of o
"' " « -'
oooc
T •« 8 8
« 1 1
i
f
"S
•
o o o
= s R" "i P
o o o o
q q q q
§ § s §
CN CS CM CN
i
1
t B I I 5
1 I s. 1 ?
o-fif-f
*** "B
t 8
J8 1
i
a
s
R'
H-7
-------
-o
0)
c
•H
JJ
OJ
8 * «?
I i Z y
I a » £
O • t_
u — c
c E B.
B
52g
o o| o
S«_ _
««
ivoooo
"
— — " -^ O*
«Jv-l
*
CSCStS
occc
! i
U
Sm n MI f>
— — q| *->
o o cJ 61 d
SM M f*| O
— — q «*i
b o o d| o
ooeo
I i
8i
1 1
* ^
'S?
* 3
t 3 ? g -
R i i =1 S
5 § 8 SI
00 OC OO »l O
8 S S S S!
§o o 01 o
v v «l 5
V V «OJ «
vf « i*r -^i f^r
— « *
o o o o
oo oo 00 ae
M cs M r*
O q o q
s § s §
S S S
I
I
3
* "8 -
i | «
£ t i-
1
a
1
H-8
-------
^^
T3
Q)
£H S
I
C «
^H "
0 8
U g
X~" *5
i
oj 1
ffi 9
J
U E
J E
§ §
H i
B
t
H
|
I
i
I
i
i
2
E
|
®
I
H1
4 c
II1
1
K "1 S
jl*
! s
Ii1
z ™
H
^
U __
— 0 C
> - o
B c •
° C M
— o —
• c e
Z D U
o
7 c c
c '; cu
0 * _
B i fc
? u:
|
I
•g
z
_
II
1
i I
-
C c*
S |
g ?
if
£ O
M
ae ^
a e
•^ i
u.
„
> •
i ^
s 5
S u
~ o
et
>.
O
^
5
,*
(2 |
ii
tc.
\ <
I
1
S S S 8 £ 5 S g 8 S S 8 8 8 2
5 S S S £ 5 g g 8 S S E £ 8 ^
r*4««e v — v * — ft *) *r\ r~
2 * S o. £ - S a « K a P P « S
S S ft Si * S K Si S Si » C ft C S
Kl "O >C> SO (N w-i v^ ps) 000000 V
v. >n «n «ri_ « v v M o^ « « v
*C (N fS Ol O (N ^j i£i Ol ? O O O O| O
^ — «— v — o^ & o 300 v
or-r- v *nrMM — ovv oe
N «o" w^ i*T — V v" o" «n V v" r-r
CN tN M CS OO OC 00 OC OOOO
O O 0 0 OOOC OOOC
(S fSl M (N
gRR°'| ££E°'§ Sgg015
fS
- 3 9 - i = 5 ^ - § =5 s Ol §
1 1 1
i i i
J 1 J
i i i
tj -8 1
11 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 s i { 1 1 ! ! i i
J 1 6 6 6 |||&&|: | | 6 B | 6
liiiil Illiiil §iiilil
Cu.tkU.u-H J{JiL.b.u.b.H S 6 u. if i£ u. i-
X
K
O
S
«
«
8
:
r^1
i
H-9
-------
-c
0)
c
•H
4J
c
o
u
CN
I
sc
w
i &'
1
i I
ill!
i
lii^"
11 i s &
o „
•o — •
•- o e
* «• o
= E o.
D u
^
8. 8 g 81 g
6 d 6 dt d
8 8 g 81 g
d d d dl d
o o o 01 o
111 11
RRPIS
oooovjw^
= f -1 a
g 8 g 8 S
8 8 S 81 8
d d o d| d
o o o 01 o
o 01 o
111 11 1
8 g 8 81 g
o d o dl d
8 8 8 81 g
d d d dl d
o o o 01 o
O O| O
11
SI8
= a a
OOOO
^o^fs
o- CT- —
00 » 00 00
OOOO
o q o o
8 R S S
o o p o
d d d d
oo —
>oM
"•" S
I I 1 I
I I I I
I 1 I I
S S S t s
•c -c -c -c 8
(- t- f- t- H
! -s -s -g -g
^ I I i I
? f ! 1 |
i i
i !
II II ,
•C T T T ?
I- 1- S- i- S-
1
H-10
-------
0)
C
-rH
4J
C
O
u
CN
g
i
\
1 I S
a f
- a
2
E
Sf PJ
a B
(- z
8. 8 8 81 8
d d d o*| d
8 8 8 81 g
d d d d| o*
o o o 01 o
8 8 8 81 8
o 6 o e>| o
8 8 8 81 8
6 c> o dl o
8 8 8 81 8
d d 6 ol 6
8 g 8 81 8
o o 01 o
888 81
_-.__[
h- 001 ac
N PI «
\C «5
— r-
O_r^_
Is*
-------
73
0)
3
C
-H
OJ
G
O
0
ffi
w
i
f
t
!5
I
2
?
I J
I *
iS
0 C
» - o
• G E
Z 3 u
E E
3 U
GB ^
— I
O
ggggg
d d d d e
ggggg
ggggg
d d o d d
ggggg
d d d o* d
OOO
g g g g g
d d d d d
g 8888
d d d d d
SKRPS
v «e oe ^r >o
— " r*
v o
C4M
-------
o
H
N
H
Q
OJ
~<
D
H
U
<
u
H
S
O
01
3d
u
1
CO
ft
o
w
CO
w
>
H
E-<
CM
<;
u
i
^
PQ
o
1-3
CO
w
CO S
>" 1
Si a
g E
§ 8 S 8 "i £ 1
E~* < ^
§ g ! d *
2 £ fij
H ?
Ctf 'i § §
o 1 d g
p ?
o IS
U "I
rt i 1 *
^ "^ cl n
•? si fi? 1
M|lH i
H 8 1 • 1 s i E
1 •?*»««-. SS
m 5212212
a i "s « £ 8 ^ i
H i i 1 1 1 1 i
« 1 i 1 1 o I
H D O D "^ Z U
1 1 rf
•| '1 «8
Z
*}
Us
U'
z a
"1 ^
III
z
i s
i ? i
• J
z
c 'o f
ill
u
t)
•D — •
— o e
» - o
c ^ —
s 2 :
— o •**
* c E
Z. P UJ
o
« ™
c c
o J^
i i
D u:
•
§
«
«
•B
|
|
||
§" &
'
ac
_
i I
T
p f?
1 ^
*"
§
c p
^ f'
z
.
1 B
^_
P?
3 f
bl
c
E o=
« u
_^
p 5
« B
— *
A
«
£
-
8.
ll
<
T
CD
|
£<
I
1
vNcscsto r*5cr~r- v
r-oooj«D o-ooo —
d d d o*| d M d d o" ri
Scsnntv ^t t~
to r* vi r-l »n — «o o *c| w
r- — — —| (si vsictetolv
fs? (**
°°R5|r" °§£S n
^ ^
EP23IS Rg22|g
I--:-- 5 S353I 5
EE^sli 5 i 1 SI 1
— ' " "" —1 »
csi(sirsisi «vvv
•^ "' ^ ^ S S S S
mmMf^ tSP4f«*fN
^""-'' oooo
SKSSI2 il^SR «
S£S8|g i£SSI8
I 1
X Z
"8 t
1! S
| - -a -
1 = 1 « 1 E I
! 3 i l-s 1 1 2 1 IT
(5 i s §• •? 1 uliM
IJJij I j ij|i] i
5
"
$
m
5
r**
R
5
•e*
5
flB*
I
H-13
-------
Q)
C
-H
4J
C
o
u
m
w
1 I s ft I
iHS
li'E)
1 1 S. « £
ll1!?
z u .ji
HI-
C ^
•e — •
— 0 c
* •- o
S S :
— o —
- o E
V
- * _-
: J^
u •- *"
e E &
3 U
1
1
O
i
z
u.
f F
S -— '
* .L
f «
£ L
-* i>
c
^
>.
£ °
X
*
T
g <
I
!
Z
1
S5go§ ssssa
ddddd ddddd
g S g S S 8 g S 5 g
o d d o* c ddddd
t, = .| ,
8*O VI O *— O O O Ot O
— — oc g tsj m^ rsfstsrs
mncir^, OOOC
g«SB| = i
SSSSg §£SSI§
1 1 t 1 , IIBI
| 1 I 1 1 | J j 1 1 I
•B "8 2 « I _ S oii||
|t|i| ! & 1 11 3 i 1 ?
&C£u.£ •- ^ £££«.£ H
R
e
a
e
"
S
I
oc"
*
•e
I
H-14
-------
(D
3
C
-H
JJ
C
O
o
1
I
fc
w
H
5
u
5
|
e
s
i
I
a
1
c
ft.
s
i
i
2
i
®
CONTROI
;jj g g §
E 'i S" « r*
liMS
I | a £ ^
H*»l
.•* g « *?
ll^T
~
^? S ^ *
iJ-'Sf
lfl°
•0 - »
- o e
» " 0
e c '"
0 o !
i" B E
Z 3 U
- « _•
C c C
"* C *
e "; ft.
C w fc.
e E ft.
w u:
,
1
•s
1
z
S B
-i it
u.
a. u
>• •
i r
* u:
ct ^
>• *
s y.
oc
>.
^
1
1 6
f- z
CO
£ <
S_ fs» — >£ 0- (M P- 'V (N
o o o 5 6 o o o rs
d d d d d d d d d d
o o q o o 8 o S S S
deed d o o d d d
5 = S82 P3R£I|
Stn«nO— O o O o o
— — V, ao IN >£ v 5
Si&S&S &S:s;S:l8
p" p"
— —(*•» Vl" — V (N| V
^ — oo oe m — m » «r oo
t* P"^ P- I-" 00 OC* OC OC
00 00 00 OC
f> f»l (•! f*l O d C O
gRiBS| 2 S-SR 1
§SSS|8 SSSS8
c E S S
1
3
i
.1.1 1 11 i
.. -a -a « i i .. =8 =3 * f
1 1 1 § s 1 | .s 1 1 1
-g-o^^j 3j f-oti£:J
'5^'^'g 2 t^tfi"g
JllJi I 1 jliji I
R
e>
«5
e
g
5
oe
i
1
H-15
-------
•o
CD
3
d
•H
JJ
C
O
U
ffi
M
|
V}
5
^
|
K
w
U
i
1
f
1
S
1-
I
1
1
!
^
i
o
E
I
CONTROL Or
•o a C S
jiigg
i e i
1*li*
Jl'ij
| s . - «r
||li|
1 1 * £ -
111-
v
4)
- ° C
* •- o
o s :
^ o —
« c E
z D u;
u
0 c C
- ° —
c "^ a-
0 U ta
O •" O
c E a.
3 1C
1 Number of O
R
> j^
c fe
^ U.
? i
is V
* w
« S
^1
a.
>.
^
?
,D 0
fr- z
•
1 <
£
S 8 S S o o S S 5 S
ddo'd d ddcid d
88880 08008
oo'cio d ddo'd d
t~N»Tlo. ^.rj« p
SSSS * SSo.S *
— — n* «ri — V (Si V
~
c E 1 SI i 5 i i S| 1
*• 5 " N -i »•
t-' f~ r-^ r- oc ec oc oe
oc oc ec oc
«««-> §§s§
SKSS| S 8-RR |
SSSSI8 SSSS|§
I
i
1 1 1 ! ! | 1 1 1 i I
lllH 1 § lliii 1
^ U. b. U. U. H 3 6 U. U. U- U. {-
s
d
8
e
S!
i.
•e*
~
S
06
1
H-16
-------
H
H
O
CtJ
u
D
cu
o
a
W
U
CD
O
CO
w
CO
o
s
H
EH
CO
O
u
w
w
o o o
11111 I
f 3 2 '- 1 j
I i i i I- i
i s i" 1
z 1 a
1 1 « s
11*!
Is-?
I a I
•s ^ J **. ?
* J J-.
j i] 3 "
•5 J 3 "-
J 1 J J *
! fgcl
1 - * J i
C ' *
v p w !^
d " "•
3 g . g f
1 1 £ * 7
u;
Jfj.
B! °'
2 1 7f
i I ^ I °
I 1 £ *
= 1
|
i 1 o
-| f- z
K <
•8 "
f
| ?<
oggig ° g g| S °§i|8
5n c5j P »*• Sj — « SI o
°iiji Oiiji e § §i i
P4 rtl Ti « *-] * O>* Ol W-'
w^ «o| — _ «• M-) ap 9| S
SO ^J O_ O *fi| * S_ cj O_
° S SI S ° 8 SI 8 ° S SI S
p" VI « eJ ol ri *% 51 »
» 2! ' a si 5 8 II s
K =1 a- s V . s-
ogg ° S 8 °S8
— — »^
e8g ° | | ° I I
"' £" 2" S S" ?
do© °&S o Q o
O C O O O O
C* * *^" V* — " OC*
ope ® S1 £ ®S5
o o o o o o
°"5 °pg ° ? i
«• "~ *o —
ocr^ oor- oor^
* * s 1 § 1 111
•W-WMIO fif*>VO w^^OlO
(SCSf^lOC O-^M— V V *O| v-.
S S §1 § S S SI S S S §1 8
- 1 -1 -I
1
1
Z
1
If H 1*
i! •*! *i
_r! E^.rl J - ? 2
lljl 1 lljl | Jlj|
Jill 1 1 J J I £ 1 j ill* I
g
*
s;
§
§;
M"
§
i
«'
I
H-17
-------
Q)
3
a
-H
aJ
C
O
W
i
o
8
E
M
5
g
i
_
§
1
g
i
S£
i
g
p
^
s
i
I
M
fii
|
Oj
2
z
I
ft
i ON USE C
f
B
!
1 - e
i * « -
1^1
I 1". ?
f *-.!
z *:
« T! sr
•s z | «• g.
-S 8 1 -
E | - -
* § "5 •
^ i ^ ' a
o 0 u
-0 _
C • JJ
s i £ "• s
Jl^i
^
l|il!
0
3 8 . « ?
- '» 2 S ?
| 1 S. g o
w
T fr ,
1 1 1 °
u:
c *
1 1 * B
!
S 1 s
.6 H Z
I !
•s
1 I
z 1 *
R i a] i i i i] § i § s] i
— M" VI «c — r*l V — | S
... . . » J . ..J -
§g
«
* * * S 2 2 S" S £
ggg g S 8 g§8
v^«C5 rJV— oTf*Ce-"
— — — . r4 fs fi v
ggg gog ggS
» W ^ «VfN f~- OO V
a" a" s 5 s ? » a 5
ggg ggg ggg
«n m «n «n v)_ « >c_ *o oo
IS M M 0. 0. 0.
5 » 5 s £ £ a S 1
" " " H H = £S"
sss; sss sss;
°°° III 111
S 3 S | s s 51 s 55g|g
SS§I8 SSSI8 SS§I8
|S S 5 ? 1
i i s ^ j i
i J! i i 45
2
s
1
= 1l e 111 111
ill 1 ill « III
— L. t. C S ^;uta£ S -7- t »- »•
0 o O ij
-------
(Continued)
IONS BY W PERCENT
i
T S
TABLE H
KRS THAT REDUCE UNCONTR<
g
CONTROL OPTION niA: RASED ON USE OF PACKED-KD s
•8 £
1 1 g" 1
1 u s
11*!
1 -a - S
Jlif
ill*!
T .1-
1113-
1 1 1 i *
1 - s
jNt|
'C *
Is * 9
i 1 J' i 1
u
•s fr j
! 1 I fi
o E £
u:
•a £
]lllu
^
1 1 Z
1 !
^I<
I
1
i § §1 1 s 1 II 1 §§§!§
" oe* «»"] r-" ff-" ee" oe] >c »n « o*j —
r-rsf»>lf*> fno—lko irt — ^ —
— » M| 0 t> 5 tM $ "*1 *"* **j —
r^ vT **M ™ O o — H r^ *o" *o" o I — *
F S «l « cev^«r> o « •*! —
r r- o* f~ VOD^
f»f f*f PJ o" O O*
01 ^ ** oc oo oc 3 S^ o
o o o o o c £52
5 5 SI i s » SI S ' - S1 *
SS§I8 SSSI8 SS?|8
III 1 III III
"£ » it V J £ ii i ir £ 1 S 5 5
3ii? I 3 1 1 1 i3in
•B i t •B _ § •B'iii _ SE -B-sii
J 2 i 2 1 J ] 2 2 2 4 1 J 2 2 2 3
g
(N
'a 00£'f>8'« OOI'U.Z'16
I
H-19
-------
T)
(1)
a
•H
4J
C
o
u
ffi
t
0
E
£
|
i
o
E
3
D
C
z
i
8
17
fl
S
1
M
|
z
i
a
£
1
5
i
D
2
£
|
5
i
i - g
i 2 i [ ~
z Z
| | •> £
| 1 » £
z 1 ->
•8 S
| 3 **- £
1 * £
,11-0
J i 1 ^ !
0 8^ -
1 1 1 r
•« 8 a **
ill?"1
U 00
71 _
< b • 5
1 i | si
c " ~
7>
j i | ? §
a * * * ~
' S ?
! *S | c p
^ "1 fl^ R u
£ w T
UJ
•
"3 ? 15
i 1 § °
a 1 £
u:
*B «
— 8C ¥* ^
- ^ — ^ u
|| i i
s ^
_
e
i *
r§
t
i
li<
£
1 1 SI 1 1 1 SI 1 1 1 II S
R 1 Si i s S si i s s §1 s
n (S VI at N ^ ril r-' N M' til r-'
|| 81 | §II|| II III
Soe «i e' « c? — I ^ r-" vi oj CN
P «l m «o ee vt o — o vl so
« 0 «J - •« P «J » «D - 0J 00
liil § § 11 1 illjl
r* **T V e" «T r*i cl — * e> *n" Vl oo"
* s. 2. £. =. « ij 5 8 8 Sj S
r- oT vi r* »" r-" o.| *»T wi" r* ool — "
III 8|g ||§
~ * "" S' R" 5 « R R"
§§§ 8 | S If!
• » 2 s a" s" s s s
III §11 III
m" «e \e » N "ff *»" * oo
r* S **> «ocr- cs «-» ?
-
§0 o
o o
(S M ft O* O O*
S S S 888 ill
«„-„•
^^^ ***
0^0.0. o-o-o- o^o-o-
O* O\ O O-O-O- &. O &.
•— * — r -J
SSR| 225|s SSSIS
—
OCCC OOOIO OOOIO
S S 66 o £
ii. I i . i t .
I
TJ
1
1
•g E i « '1 1 | I t |
^ =8 ^ E £ ^ ^ ^ | | -'^1
^11^ 1 ^ft^ 1 tlM
Jill ! i Ul 1 1 | ]lll 1
I
g
S
1
r*
s
g
S
P"
I
H-20
-------
H
EH
H
S
§
a
u
w
>
H
i
o
U
w
p
o
w
C/)
w
H
CJ
OQ
O
w
C/)
O
U
in
ffi
I
£ £ i
i 1 - g
I'M
i 1 « ~
in!
. _
1 1 1 1
i g i
•f & 1 « §
1 | j | J
i -
1 1 j 3 -
•g 1 3 -.
allr
H
jlilt
^
j 1 1 1 i
ui
i* i i
1 1 1 1 °
12 e § £
1 1 •
8 e C u
1 J1*
f
ill
1 i
V
2 J *
0 8 g 81 S ° S 8 81 S ° 8 8 81 8
vP « v>1 (-"i" v" <^> *o"i >o f$ ri o;] ^
s 2 ; sy s si » ~l s s a si R
e 1 I 11 § e 1 I 11 8 01§1J1
VP — c**o« v'WvW o'co'o
psr^MfN vvv**1
(N fS (N (N
S 2 = II 8 s S « s s s * - *i |
wi o VI Ol C vi o "O Ql & Vi o VI Ol ^
— xr SIS — * ¥|S — « «| S
i § §
_ a. _ ?-. _ o-
1
i
vi ~ «> Z *> Z
fe 1 1 fc 1 t 1
1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 | | 1 f 1 i
] 1 1 2 E 1 1 1 J J 2 E I | | 1 1 I E 1
e
2
s
I
a
1
5
"
1
H-21
-------
T3
a)
-H
O
u
in
K
I 1 «
f R
5 I
5
I
S I 5 2
1 I I II §
£ I 5 2] I
= i
S I 8 8
8888
o o o o
o o o o
§ § § I
R §1
» c-ij
§ Sf S
•• - <-i
S §
•e «^
s a
P P
s si s
8 8 8
8
»•
P*
«*i tf>
a s
c q o o
So d c
V V V
S
M
R
§
K
*
R
! 1 I 1
rj -C & *
„ C • &
£ « 1 «
I I I 1
'B "g
I I I e
fe - b
i i
i !
I i
o o o c
t I * ;
-------
•o
-H
JJ
c
o
u
a
ta
2 1 I
-I
31
2 1 - §
t-
HI(
ll
2 X:
•
8 8 8 81 8
M 5 rs «j *
•B « — VI] —
•D ^ m «l §| 8
=• i
I 1
r- B i -a
1 1 1 I 1
1
i
S
I
s
m
!S
H-23
-------
T)
0)
3
C
•H
0->
C
o
CJ
in
i
ad
w
n
II-
2 *
I"
*• r
8' I *' 5!
S £ « 5| 8"
t* to vtf «
21 f
o o o to
c q q
CHI O
8 8 g
»n o i-
8" S X
i i
"
§
a
o o o o
v^
p
S g S S
= (SI
S S 81
cs -v ^
'
o o o
KI r-
g I
o o o
o q o
§ § s
•— *O
c*i wi
s
I
I
I
•5
I
i 1
u. u. u.
I
u- u. u.
•B J
1 I
I
If. W5 V.
b. h. u.
ESI
U
•8
i .1
K-24
-------
6
§
m
g
— 1
-o 2
OJ §
•H C
C |
0 1
B |
i
H
tn g
a |
j |
'9 1|
E 1C
C H
Si
t g
Is
li
P
11
ij
* <
l:-
S o
is
8 2
11
j l«l
IMS
jl-.j
1*1
•B 2 1 » S
Jill?
II
•B I I ".
jijj"
i .8 3 *
Jill*
o
1 . 1
,u 1 £ jj
III
i
-,
•* S" P £? **
1 I 2 L -
J 1 - I~
I g S
1 I ^ | -
K
, f ,
| | j a
s
2 J _•
i H l u
1 1 £
I
iif
I !
y j
z 1 *
p*" — pi — T] r* « V *1 (N* r~ r* «n r^
M€»»|nvi
oooo 88SS 8888
" N " " " 2- D 2
Mr^rtrs « « wr « INIMCMFM
— _ _ — TT^TT^r ««^»
OOOC OCCO OOOO
o ooc o'o'oo o'ooo
1111 1111 1111
OOOO COCO OOOC
1***1C (NMMM §§§§
S I 2 2 g 8 5 S S | SS-S
•OO'OOIC viovioc «^O»ftO
— *V1C — V V O — V V
II I I MM H H
I
1
1
i 5 5 i i i i i i i i i i
fc^ee 1 feece ? I e 1 e 1
^IJIi g v s | i I | £ B jj I !
I i 1 1 I 1 1 ] 1 1 I 1 J I 1 I J H
&
g
R
I
p
!
I
I
(254.4W.OOO)!
S
(254.4M.IX
1
s"
1
H-25
-------
T3
(1)
C
-H
O
u
in
i
W
w
&
p
ill-
S S R
to w N
si e £
Ill I
-C l£ v£ ^C
o c o o
o c c c:
d c c c
III
O C C C
—
rr, oc — oc
MM
a, fr. & &
i I I I
ill!!
I e c c f
,1111
•^5555
«
5
1 1 | II
i i § s
1 I I,
S 5 Sj
i I i
o o
d c
8
o o o c:
s s s s
1 s 8| §
£ £ £ £
I f f I
I 1 1 1
e s e e
I 1 I I
I ! I I
t- i- i- i-
1
f-
g 8
s :
S 8
i
S S S S
»' S S S
g i § g
S S S S
g 8 | g
«n «n in *
g g g g
»n ^ wS v^
e o o o
o c d c
8 8
q o o o
§o o d
•v «• tr
I I I I
i a e e e
Hill
0.430.
I
H-26
-------
Q)
o
u
in
i
EC
-iJ
§
H
E
S
a
§
1 " ?
* j S f
IJ
l!§
Pl
s »
M
S <
v>" r-~ go"
m r« F-
8888
S S S K
ff rt" ^ en"
" "
ooo
OOOO
o' o' o o
g
OOOO
31
S & S
o o o
£888
t*i rt t*\ rt
s s s s"
8888
OOOO
OC — 00! O
<£(N«C4
— «— 1 V
*>
§ 8
8 8 8 ii
»
vi *n »n vi
8888
8888
p o o o
§ s § §
2 § " §1 8
2S5.M4,
SS
II
i § i i
•s 1 I 1 1
4
16666
^ J 1 11
! e 6 6 6
t 1 I 1 1
1 4 4 4 4
1- (- H I-
H-27
-------
g
H
CS3
§
D
H
CJ
U
H
1
ffi
o
CO
Cu
g
w
CJ
PQ
O
.C/3
W
U
CO
o
U
LE H
s
H|3
S | 2 £ «
O
S
- 'I « 3
s •" S Jf "I
IM g „• S a <
S - s I 1 1 2
1 * 1 1 1\ 1
1; « JJ 0 ' - s = •' a
°£S& °fi&&
o c o o o o
«n _ o - •» yi
& O C S? OQOC7
S s" 1" R
o o o o ° S S 8
o«-c>o oojnp
t»lm_M 1NOP4O
W O* O 0 o V — M
oor->'i oor-v>
O< Ov 9\ O< O> O>
o'ogo
8 « = 2| 5;
?SSSI8 S2SSI8
I I
•Eg "B B
5 1 I 1
I
I
1
1 g 1 . 1 B 1
~t o»^ C^ S 1 i
111 ! f 111 !
"S 1 ' « J! _ * "Sf^v^
I 1 J J 1 1 j8) j I J J Jf 4
g
p"
cs
!•
S. 302, 300
1
H-28
-------
•o
0)
3
c
-H
4-)
c
o
u
ac
w
i
: BY 97 PEUd
M
i
|
REDUCE
I-
1
i
2
ft
i
o
1
id
E
0
8
. _ _
I 2 4 «• "R
z 1 a
1 1 **• 1
4 -a «* S
MM
3 ] - s
a 1 *
1 1 1 3 -
I S 3 **
J I H *
^ -
1 T K e ^
1 i 4 1
jlili
IM!
I j 1
e 1 § o
c | 1
!il>
I " i
t j
i
1 1 <
|g|SI| § | | gj 8
§ S S 1] S i 5 S il S
111 §1 1 ill III
§» OP* PI
8888 8888
2" =" - s" a" R" »" a'
2" =" - 2" a" s •*" a"
1 1 ° 1 | | ° |
S 5 S P" 8" P"
o o o o 2 SJ 2 Sf
n " m "
t- t^ P- r-
— ^ — — f~4 tS (N (N
dodo *;^™ —
t- f* r- r- r^r-f^r*
« « «• « 0060
c w^ «n o! — \O — «o r*i| ic
SSSSI8 SSSSI8
ii.i _ 1 1 . i
B
I
1
"2S52 B "S^iiE
1 « S J S £ "£ S J S s
3111? 1 3 1 ? 1 ?
*'C*!I*"B "S I*;'PT?*T?
o 6 B « JJ * ocQuC _
^ ££.£.£. 3 J ? (£ i£ 1 £ 4
g
g
^
7.202,000
I
1
p
2
H-29
-------
0)
3
C
•H
4-1
C
O
u
w
w
a - P
I If
«$
i -
a
ill
i e ^ C "
H'Sf
Q
£18!!
M S §
§ I ° »
S" 6"
8. 8. I §
« o>" —> o"
§ g
— o
o o o
o o o
§ 2
SI
—1
P N S
81 §
g B
10" —
| | g 8
a" ? * a"
8888
s" 3' *" a"
§ § §
S 2 S
-------
TJ
tt>
-H
Jj
C
o
u
w
H « i
nn
l»*i
* l 1 ". ?
I S i **
i i j 3 "
I 8 3 -.
1 I * 1 =
1 f s 1 1
jnh
88 « ?
I H fe f
1 1 i s
1 1 1 1 •
1 i .- e
| 8 £ s! u
1 i 1 &
D a
8 3 *
I1!
i-i
i s
i
i
R* »^ r^ •*! v* fi 06 *"3 «-«l oT
•D<««lcN 00 K> — •*( 6
«S-S|S t^N^-ir-
o^ — ^ f* *iri v" fT **f o *"i ov
S-ss!s s^sslP
OOOOI O GQOOI O
—* — .- r — ~ •* v V v
-^ ~ ~ — V V *" »
o o o o o o o o
«««« r-f^t-r*
OOOO (SCNNf"*
G 6 0 O 6 O 0 O
i*i fj (*>«•> O O O O
O O O O] g OOOOI O
c£cS « cct'E
1 i | 1 I | 1 | | M
iilii 1 § iiili 1
(^ b. u. a, u. H j C u. it u. u. (-
1
m
R
O
1
H-31
-------
i
M
§
s
§
a
u
CO
QJ
o
a
CO
w
H
EH
Oj
• *M ***
i i
Ji u
^ VH S3 G
•E -*~ m
S ? ^ C
2 * *
t tt. S
2
1 1 i
£ « E
1
£
5
§ 1 1 1 §
§ 8 8 g s
§ § § 1 §
a' s £ R s
1 1 § § §
R R 8 § S
* »
i § 1 § §
i 8" 8 2 8
- «S M f- S
gss §ss gsa ess ass
1? E R S'? 9 *' S CV2 Jj » S
-
gss s§s s§s §is §§s
fs o PM (M «N oC rsitsch o*•*« «^i © ro ««*io*^ t- o t- r*or^
*^-r, m n tf) n CM V?^-- VrnU
? •" ?. 5 " S 5"S? ^--e uS-V
5?^^ ^^S? SJ^SJ R^P SSP
«ocs<: «co'r- oc or- ts©— CM o •«*
ST1 **"' Sr »*-, (N O\ «^ t^ •» rnCMO- fnt*.^.
aoeff cT-r^rsi a>rJr*i oocsfn ooc^4
— * -v — m — ^ •* (N vo en * vb ^ K
— — — CM — ^cs— «(N ^^l
^•v— t*-, — oc n«?f^ *v — " f* •^••CCM
Of**- C — O ©»^f^ m^f^ f?t<5i©
m-c— *^^cr^i rnt--v -«' •£>*«* ^-Sf^
= S R = S * =28! §££ i£R
fO TT — <*% ^J CM M t-' fi V *C •>• V t-^ CN
P S R SSS £SS SSS SEP
»r oetNi ir — »X iXo^-*' «e — CN «eo^»-J
«i £ a g
B _ E E B B
o 1 ^1 * 1 ^ .
«'£ « ; E^u • E-^s S Su ? - e= g ^ - = g i -Eg H t=Eg £ peg
.8 JIJ 1 III .8 U| .8 l|| 8 ll|
5 006 f-j l"l"5 § ooio § O^Q 5 ooo
1
a
£.
^
0>
J>
«
1
'w
K
"i
u
•o
= «
£ S
1 i *•
1 ss
u e- p
IS i
u ^ £
C x, ..
1 11
~ •« '
5 .E t
•8 £ -
* u -
•° -o J:
»— *J 's
0=5
« £ =
" C =
1 s s
1M
c •§ |
0 u S
.1 s 1
§ * I
•5 S .£
" V £
S Z =
3 *i t>
£ 5 "
<> s .=
™ c
• •DC
f -? "S
!ii
HI
y Q. C
•5 "S "o
1 i 1
s ** •*
III
g § § §
fill
S £ » »
. J: £
— B — C
I § i g
ili-I
H-32
-------
w
H
I
O
u
w
D
W
QJ
O
K
W
ca
>
H
E"
CU
<
u
og
o s
^H
w^
W y
co e
^
U)
•CO
Cd
S
w
H
H
U
w
fc
Civ
w
E-i
CO
o
u
CO
I
K
w
ttl
ffi
u
1
H-
*J
« "^ *
|
1 H
o
11
1
f.
•1
x
1 ff i
1 ^ E
»
i "
1 Is
|
\
Z ll
j
b.
B
J
L M
•s J
It
IJ jj
1 ~
J ii
.8
j
i
§ i § i i
P" £ 8 1' 8"
i 5
§ i § i I
g" S 8' § 3
I
1 1 1 i 1
3
g § S § |
gpR gpR g s £ ggg g 8 g
d — oo d — oo cd a do 6 odd
S S g S5S S-fE 2 g £ 88S
»,_« ^,_» »,0»1 «-,01 «10V1
PS" SS? PSP PS£ fSSS
— 'd— — d — — o — *-d— — 'd —
r-o^
rid— CNO— CM' © CN rsdfs ridri
«*» « — jn is&rU j£^— *ti»2!;
— r* v! M ^ ^> — — ^ c ^W^ — • d <*^
[M (N 11
. g s S5£ » g - SRS *g?
— fS
5s? 22! 2 S 1 2gs S^s
— «n i»i — « cs — — o ^- rw d — ' n -o
£ & E 2 E
1 I I I II II If
1 '1 |1 |1 1 1 I '1
• j -i -4 'J« • £ f
R^^JS P'^i£8 P^*ts8 ^°~£iS ^""^2
nil mi nii nil nil
iii
8. 8. 8.
§11
.£ i £•
1 .1 |
1 1 1
i 1 1 1
E t _' 1 1 1
8 i- p c 5 g
go. g J 6 J
S. £ 8 ! S 5
in in
•* £ » » w
S 1 f 5 1 1
•| "g o £ 8 £
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 s | 1 1
§ S | 6 | E
1 1 § 1 ! 1
i 1 i I 11
l-Niil
"i « I J! •« .s
" 1 H ^
1 1 1 1 ii
1 x H i JB i
it I 1 i s g
* 1 •* f ?K
g i g -c •= -c
S 7 T -j 8 | 8
I * * * r -
J5 — — > > >
g 8 E 1 g g g
II I II II
H-33
-------
-o
•H
JJ
c
o
u
00
a
w
j
I
1
!
1 sl
3 !
i *
i
1 JE
a!
.s
1 I i
1 IE
"I
J
Z II
1
*l !l
1«j *
II
(4 £
1
fl
V
i i i I i
i £ i § i
0 3 g 2
§o" p* o* o*
fi W vS Vi
C-
§ i i i §
g S 8 g |
n" v£ K go xr
i I i i i
8 § § 1 8
r-* o" (•? o* »»")*
C- °* 2 m
ggg FSS F 8 F F8F F8F
ddd —d— _d— ^d— — o" —
<*tOf) — r~- ^ <~o<"- — D _ « o —
0<5o; o — oo o 5 q ooo qCo
vidvi — do — o' — ' — : d — ' «d —
fS8!£ 8SS S8S °SS «8S
— d — odd cod d o' d odd
R8E SSR §8§ §S§ §8?
C4o*r4 odd coo odd odd
(S (N T t
vir-i^ TT oo vi ^rs^; vof** ^ r^ oo
rsooe vif^w m — vi vi — vj viov
vi — vi «> vi — «csvi o— r-vr- r^-v— r- r- o
* 1 ! * 8
P'-'>8 j| -! 5T 8 J — ^ 8 JI™SS Jl™&§
"•"is^ i "i i 1 g§§^ g^i§! gls^
iiil Jin Jiii itti j-iis
E i! E
8 S S
lii
8 i§ 8
i 1 1
1 ii
1 ill
ll M 1!
SJ2JJJ
8 -1 * 5 S I
1 { 8 i 1 i
1 1 1 1 ! i
ijilll
iiiiii
If Mil
| w • £ £ -S
2§ | "5 *o *5
, I | 1 i 1
2*2^11
t"" •*• "9 T( ^B
O c fi fi B
! * M **
= I i i 1 i
jjljlii
— £ — > > >
i 8 8 8 f: S §
1 1 i 1 A' II
H-34
-------
•c
0)
c
-p-i
•n
jj
C
o
u
t
CO
i
K
3
•9
H
1
H
6 i
31
a
1 IJ
3 1
w
1 *
l£
I
X
8 w —
1 jl
2
R
I jl
i *
i
1 II
-•
if Nit Anwlivnl CoMrol C
($ Minion pa ynr)
Medium L*rge
PUnli PUnlc
i
» II
1
w
i i i i i
§ 1 i § i
5 3 1 5 g
i i i i i
8" £ 8" 8 P
« V V P »
S" ~ * I
£, *
i § i i §
8 8 P £ 8"
— « Wl 00 -W
V Ov" o^~ vT .»
i i i i i
$ I i i g
* s S R a
PS? P°^ pg^ PS? asa
— d — — — — o — —d— do'd
— r-v .-o— —o— «c— h-cr~-
q — oo o c o o o o c c _ £ _
— do — — — d — — d — dcd
*^vi«n WO*^ OQO O Q C v^owi
Oor* 0- f*,£f^ «£fi o5o
00 OOO OOC OOC
vt"f*i vov oco ope r-.or*
cqw x o v5v -we^r q5o
OO 000 OOC OOO
— ^ p^ ^- — rj __r*>^ ^^w^ &-^o
viojm O
voow-i «ts« vq^ff visoo oetN —
v}^o «oo-^ *n»no vi vi o* xroiv
1 — (N 1 — — (N
!•»«*> f) »*1
Rvot^i o> oo Ov o- ^> f~ 9>e r-
v — i •v'r-ir^ v'vo- •wo^"^ — cso
— — — V) »»1 „ (N f-l _ (S — _ wn V
H 2 g £ £
|£=8 1^28 |^^8 i £ £ 8 1 H 2 |
gEii gill gg§i H§li 1 f S §
Hill Ijlll 11 11 IJII! Uli
III
g g |
L s. £
8 § §
I SI
1 H
i '8 'i
1 1 1
» S. .; 1 II
i 5 1 | U
*• £ t ? f f
& * *> 8 8 8
* i * 1 Ii
11*888
1 1 1 1 1 1
| 1 1 1 II
I ! 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
if iliJ
* 1 1 1 S I
Hill!
1 3 S * **
, i g o " o
1 1 1 § II
i * i •* ii
IL i 1 S 8 g
•s -s -s 1 -J-J
M M ^
3 3 3 7 " s
| c g t C c
.1 i "8 1 7 § I §
"B : • I «! » «
1 J £ & - ~ -
..££ = ££•>
g § 8 ? S f i
Illllll
H-35
-------
T3
a)
3
c
•H
4J
c
o
u
CO
w
•J
•§
1
H
! IJ
1 '*
O
11
M £
1
H
E.
K
I & s
1 -^ ^
2
g
•| II
i£ | £
1 II
1
|S
I
T
i &i
a ^ •! J
u & J £
1 E,
1 L
?1 it
Iz Is
c « *
1 ~
' U
!
•E
3
i i
?; i
— «
«
I i
~ =
R |
V O
— t^
r>* vi
1C, ***
a § a a § a
odd odd
t~ o r- r-- o r-
^ O — •"" O —
d d o odd
SO "i "> O "i
So o S o
d d d o' d d
E § £ S g £
d o d o' d o
O< r*> r* O> « f-
o v v o> ec oc
— d f* -- VI (""I
rs — r»i M ao r» vi oo
O — «o f* »*j
V ^i o ^ vi d
S 2 § S S S
« c* »*> vi — v^
« v o \o r- —
£ * *o oc « f--
— v 10 — » r**
_ fvl f*-, •_> pf _
^ £
I 1
o o
* € R * - -S R
E E £ § B = > f
1 .1 .i 1 j 1 1 1
i**s I**i
S 1 15
III
K 8- K.
§ 8 S
.£• £ .£
1 11
:« ;i i
. i i i
¥ "S '£ S
1 i § i
2 £ £ £
fi 1 » -S -S-6
i S ! B B f
& .£• 8. S * "S
£ s - 8 8 8
* 1 * i • «
11*888
. 1 . 1 1 1
h j|{{
1 ! ^ 111
1 !!!
1 1 f i 1 1
! f | i *«
111!!!
1 « 1 J Ji
| i ! t * -s
1 1 1 I 8 3
| 4 fill
!L 1 1 s 8 s
•E *s t 1 I "8
8 I I 1 aa
I 1 1 ? c e
illlili
T S 3 S £ s i
5 a « d
f a £ = £ S^
g 1 g S § 8 8
IIIIIII
H-36
-------
g
H
H
D
O
D
H
CJ
U
H
O
fti
a
U
1
1
o
a
CO
w
>
H
u
D
CD
O
Hj
CO
w
CO
s
^!
2
^4
CO
CO
w
w
H
u
w
r-
w
EH
CO
o
u
>
Dfc
t£ n
1 ^
1
41 (fi
g M) |j
•g « J5
B
1 'M
c ^ C
a
z
_
g
Q
"3 "3
e .£
O **~*
U &
1 *
'•S &. U K
1* II
< g -JO.
z •*
•S^
* 'S "
| ^E
z
g
.2
^«
o
u
O* O" O* Q~ o"
— PI m 55 •«•
«-T ^^ %o o
G- C
X-. ,— , S-^
1 1 1 § §
§ O> S »O I/I
_ * x^' ^ »-T
C- G-
t»
g
S" 8 8 8 8
PI" CM" ^ oo" vo
^^ v^
OO1/1P1 O01/1P1 OO1*^1 lO^— Ul^-^-
U1CMP1 1/1CMP1 ITlOiri CMOCS CMOCM
pidpi pidpi pidpi odd odd
S^5 ^ ^^ C? *t *& PI "™ ^3 PI f*^- ^^ PI ^^
CMVO OO CMVO OO O OO tMO— CM O — ;
CM OCM CMOCM fMOCM O O O OOO
^^ i/i c^ ^ i/*> c^* ^f ^™ PI m *•* ^f 1^1 ^^ ^f
r^ ^^ ^ r^ o y? f^ f^ ^- ^^ o o o ^3 ci
odd odd odd odd odd
00 IA1 t"— OO OO C^ OO P} 1/1 1^1 PI CM OO PI U1
r^~pi f^oo— t^u^cM — «i <£i coi/ipi
cMr^^t CMr^i/i cs — ^- r-- — vi r*-^-vc>
I I I
CMCMO CMP1*- CMr^VI CMr^^1 P1I^>O
— pi — — Tf PI — do pidcM ^-dpi
l/1\C^- 1/1OOP1 W1CMP1 1OCM'«d- OOCM^O
in 0 ^ wi ^c^ i/ioor~- c^oo^™ ^foovo
— pi CM — PI— — oo piopi pio'cM
T i i
g a g S S
g 7T S 'o' e "c" '3 J
^§ 'S ;§ «S *.§ .5 *^ J?
5*8 6*5 ol
^* ^^.»
> ^-^JSo > "-"fio > ^"Ho jg JS—u .e iSSo
"" "c"e" " "c"e" "" *B "B * "" "C'B" "B"C*
^ c5"o 5 § ooS § ooo § OOQ g o"c55
1-1
III
o^ o^
fjj
111
te **- «
1 -2 •§
0 E g
TJ *
isS
HI
0 c O
§i|
8 a o
3 g g
£ "s"!
s ^ w
« 5 ^
o « £•
%2«
i 1 1
|;f
"8 "1 E
O "U ***
O. Q. g
ft 1
1 E-g
"o "0*0
U U o
s s s
c c c
o o o g
••* s s "K
^ B S g
£ £ =:
c c c e
o o o o
i-i/H'S.
o o oo
H-37
------- |