& EPA
         United Slices
         Environmental Protection
         Agency
Office of Air Quality        453/R-93-031
Planning and Standards       juiy 1993
Research Triangle Park. NC 27711
         Air
          Technical Assessment of New
          Emission Control Technologies Used
          in the Hard Chromium Electroplating
          Industry
                NESHAP

-------
                                                       EPA No.  453/R-93-031
                                                                  July 1993
o
            TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF NEW EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
                USED IN THE HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING INDUSTRY
                                   Prepared for:
                            Industrial Studies Branch
                  Office of Air Quality  Planning and Standards
                       U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
                        Research Triangle Park, NC   27711
                                   Prepared  by:
                            Midwest Research Institute
                                     Suite 350
                           401 Harrison Oaks Boulevard
                           Gary,  North Carolina  27513
                                                U.S. Environmental P"t?.cfion Ag°ncy
                                   July 31, 1993^^'Li^iPi,]2!)"
                                      1         77 West Jackson EC1;;------.-]1 1 9th n
                                                Chicago, IL 60604-3590      F'°0r

-------
                              NOTICE

     This report was prepared by Midwest Research Institute,
Gary, North Carolina.  It has been reviewed for technical
accuracy by the Emission Standards Division of the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards and approved for publication.
Mention of trade names or commercial products is not intended to
constitute endorsement or recommendation of use.
                                11

-------
                             PREFACE

     The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards is
responsible for establishing national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants.  This document serves as a supplement
to Chromium Emissions from Chromium Electroplating and Chromic
Acid Anodizing Operations--Background Information for Proposed
Standards (BID),  which provides technical support for the
development of national emission standards for chromium
electroplating operations.  The information contained herein
provides a detailed technical assessment of control technologies
that have been demonstrated for use in the hard chromium
electroplating industry since the BID was written.  The
assessment includes performance evaluations of each new control
technology as well as the environmental and economic impacts
associated with the use of the technologies.
                               111

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                             Page

LIST OF FIGURES	   vi
LIST OF TABLES	  vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS	  xiv

1.0  INTRODUCTION 	    1

2 .0  BACKGROUND 	    2
     2.1  MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATORS 	    2
     2.2  FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATORS 	    3

3.0  DESCRIPTIONS OF EMISSIONS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 	    4
     3.1  COMPOSITE MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEMS 	    5
          3.1.1  Composite Mesh Pads Used in Series	    6
          3.1.2  Composite Mesh Pads Used in Conjunction
                    with Packed-Bed Scrubbers 	    6
     3.2  FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATORS 	    7

4 .0  EMISSIONS TEST DATA 	    8
     4.1  COMPOSITE MESH-PAD TESTS 	    9
          4.1.1  Mesh-Pad Mist Eliminator--Precision
                    Engineering, Seattle, Washington 	    9
          4.1.2  Mesh-Pad Mist Eliminator--Monroe Auto
                    Equipment, Hartwell, Georgia 	   16
          4.1.3  Packed-Bed Scrubber/Mesh-Pad Mist
                    Eliminator System--Remco Hydraulics,
                    Inc., Willits, California 	   21
          4.1.4  Discussion of Composite Mesh Pad
                    Performance 	   31
     4.2  FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATOR TESTS--NAVAL AVIATION
             DEPOT,  ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA  	   38
          4.2.1  Process Description 	   38
          4.2.2  Air Pollution Control  	   40
          4.2.3  Process Conditions During Testing 	   43
          4.2.4  Results of Emissions Testing 	   43
          4.2.5  Discussion of Fiber-Bed Mist Eliminator
                    Performance 	   45
     4 .3  SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST RESULTS	   49

5 .0  ENVIRONMENTAL AND COST IMPACTS 	   51
     5.1  AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS 	   51
     5.2  ENERGY IMPACTS 	   53
     5.3  WASTEWATER IMPACTS  	   57
     5.4  SOLID WASTE IMPACTS 	   57
     5.5  MODEL PLANT COST IMPACTS 	   60
          5.5.1  Mesh-Pad Mist Eliminators with Mesh Pads
                    in Series 	   60
          5.5.2  Packed-Bed Scrubber/Mesh-Pad Mist
                    Eliminator System 	   63
          5.5.3  Fiber-Bed Mist Eliminators 	   63

                                iv

-------
                  TABLE OF CONTENTS  (continued)
                                                              Page

     5 . 6  SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS	    64

6.0  CONCLUSIONS/SUMMARY  	    67

7.0  REFERENCES 	    69

APPENDIX A.  SUMMARIES OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA AND PROCESS
               OPERATING PARAMETERS	    A- 1

APPENDIX B.  BASIS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODEL PLANT
               COSTS FOR NEW EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES.    B-l

APPENDIX C.  SUMMARY OF MODEL PLANT CAPITAL AND ANNUALIZED
               COSTS FOR NEW EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES.    C-l

-------
                         LIST OF FIGURES
Figure l.      Schematic of the ventilation and control
                 system at Precision Engineering,  Seattle,
                 Washington	   11

Figure 2.      Schematic of control system at Remco
                 Hydraulics,  Inc., Willits, California	   25

Figure 3.      Outlet chromium concentration data for
                 composite mesh-pad mist eliminator systems   33

Figure 4.      Composite mesh-pad mist eliminator data -
                 inlet versus outlet concentrations	   35

Figure 5.      Composite mesh-pad mist eliminator data -
                 efficiency versus inlet concentration	   36

Figure 6.      Composite mesh-pad mist eliminator data -
                 efficiency versus inlet mass rate	   36

Figure 7.      Schematic of a typical fiber-bed mist
                 eliminator	   41

Figure 8.      Fiber-bed mist eliminator outlet
                 concentrations	   46

Figure 9.      Fiber-bed mist eliminator outlet
                 concentrations without high test values...   48

Figure 10.     Performance data for mist eliminator
                 systems	   50

Figure B-l.    Plan view and ductwork specifications for
                 the small hard chromium plating model
                 plant	  B-27

Figure B-2.    Plan view and ductwork specifications for
                 the medium and large hard chromium plating
                 model plants	 B-28
                               VI

-------
TABLE 1.
TABLE 2.
TABLE 3a.
TABLE 3b.
TABLE 4.
TABLE 5.
TABLE 6.
TABLE 7.
TABLE 8a.
TABLE 8b.
TABLE 9.
                          LIST OF TABLES
DIMENSIONS AND OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR THE
  HARD CHROMIUM PLATING TANKS AT PRECISION
  ENGINEERING, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON	
AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS MONITORED DURING
  EACH EMISSION TEST RUN AT PRECISION
  ENGINEERING, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON	
                                                             Page
                                                               10
                                                              14
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR THE MESH-PAD MIST
  ELIMINATOR AT PRECISION ENGINEERING,
  SEATTLE, WASHINGTON  (TOTAL CHROMIUM TEST
  RESULTS)	

PERFORMANCE DATA FOR THE MESH-PAD MIST
  ELIMINATOR AT PRECISION ENGINEERING,
  SEATTLE, WASHINGTON  (HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
  TEST RESULTS)	
                                                               15
AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS MONITORED DURING
  EACH EMISSION TEST RUN AT MONROE AUTO
  EQUIPMENT, HARTWELL, GEORGIA	
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR THE MESH-PAD MIST
  ELIMINATOR AT MONROE AUTO EQUIPMENT,
  HARTWELL, GEORGIA	
DIMENSIONS AND OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR THE
  SEVEN HARD CHROMIUM PLATING TANKS AT REMCO
  HYDRAULICS, INC., WILLITS, CALIFORNIA	
AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS MONITORED DURING
  EACH EMISSION TEST RUN AT REMCO HYDRAULICS,
  INC.,  WILLITS, CALIFORNIA	
                                                               15
                                                               19
                                                               20
                                                               23
                                                               27
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR THE PACKED-BED SCRUBBER/
  MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEM AT REMCO
  HYDRAULICS, INC., WILLITS, CALIFORNIA
  (TOTAL CHROMIUM TEST RESULTS)	
                                                               29
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR THE PACKED-BED SCRUBBER/
  MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEM AT REMCO
  HYDRAULICS, INC., WILLITS, CALIFORNIA
   (HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM TEST RESULTS)	
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR COMPOSITE MESH-PAD MIST
  ELIMINATORS  	
                                                               29
                                                               32
                               VII

-------
                    LIST OF TABLES (continued)
TABLE 16.
TABLE 17.
TABLE 18.
TABLE 19.
TABLE A-l.
                                                             Page
TABLE 10.    CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING AND CHROMIC ACID
               ANODIZING TANK SPECIFICATIONS AT THE NAVAL
               AVIATION DEPOT, ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA	   39

TABLE 11.    PERFORMANCE DATA FOR THREE SCRUBBER/FIBER-BED
               MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEMS AT THE NAVAL
               AVIATION DEPOT, ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA	   44

TABLE 12.    PARAMETERS FOR THE HARD CHROMIUM
               ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS	   52

TABLE 13.    HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM EMISSION ESTIMATES
               ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF PACKED-BED
               SCRUBBERS AND NEW EMISSION CONTROL
               TECHNOLOGIES AT HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING
               MODEL PLANTS	   54

TABLE 14.    ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
               USE OF PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS AND NEW
               EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AT HARD
               CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL PLANTS	   55

TABLE 15.    SOLID WASTE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF
               PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS AND NEW EMISSION
               CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AT HARD CHROMIUM
               ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS	   59
CAPITAL COSTS OF SINGLE PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS
  AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR NEW AND EXISTING
  HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS.

NET ANNUALIZED COSTS OF SINGLE PACKED-BED
  SCRUBBERS AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR NEW
  AND EXISTING HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING
  MODEL PLANTS	
                                                               61
                                                               62
ESTIMATED PERCENT CHANGE IN HARD CHROMIUM
  ELECTROPLATING COST OF THREE END PRODUCTS
  ATTRIBUTABLE TO VARIOUS CONTROL
  TECHNOLOGIES	
                                                               66
ESTIMATED CHANGE IN PRICE OF FINAL PRODUCTS
  ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INCREASE IN HARD
  CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING COSTS WHEN USING
  VARIOUS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES	,
SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--PRECISION
  ENGINEERING, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON.  MESH-
  PAD MIST ELIMINATOR  - INLET A	
                                                               68
                                                             A-2
                               Vlll

-------
                    LIST OF TABLES  (continued)
                                                             Page
TABLE A-2.   SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA-- PRECISION
               ENGINEERING, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON.  MESH-
               PAD MIST ELIMINATOR  - INLET B	  A- 3

TABLE A-3.   SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA-- PRECISION
               ENGINEERING, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON.  MESH-PAD
               MIST ELIMINATOR OUTLET	  A-4

TABLE A-4.   SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--MONROE AUTO
               EQUIPMENT, HARTWELL, GEORGIA.  MESH-PAD MIST
               ELIMINATOR INLET, WITHOUT FOAM BLANKET	  A-5

TABLE A-5.   SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--MONROE AUTO
               EQUIPMENT, HARTWELL, GEORGIA.  MESH-PAD MIST
               ELIMINATOR INLET, WITH FOAM BLANKET	  A-6

TABLE A-6.   SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--MONROE AUTO
               EQUIPMENT, HARTWELL, GEORGIA.  MESH-PAD MIST
               ELIMINATOR OUTLET, WITHOUT FOAM BLANKET	  A-7

TABLE A-7.   SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--MONROE AUTO
               EQUIPMENT, HARTWELL, GEORGIA.  MESH-PAD MIST
               ELIMINATOR OUTLET, WITH FOAM BLANKET	  A-8
TABLE A-8.
TABLE A-9.
TABLE A-10.
TABLE A-11.
TABLE A-12.
TABLE A-13.
SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--REMCO
  HYDRAULICS, INC., WILLITS, CALIFORNIA.
  SCRUBBER/MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATOR - INLET A.  A-9

SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--REMCO
  HYDRAULICS, INC., WILLITS, CALIFORNIA.
  SCRUBBER/MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATOR - INLET B.  A-10

SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--REMCO
  HYDRAULICS, INC., WILLITS, CALIFORNIA.
  SCRUBBER/MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATOR OUTLET	  A-ll

SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--NAVAL AVIATION
  DEPOT, ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA.  LINE G
  FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATOR OUTLET	  A-12

SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--NAVAL AVIATION
  DEPOT, ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA.  LINE L
  FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATOR OUTLET	  A-13

SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--NAVAL AVIATION
  DEPOT, ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA.  LINE M
  FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATOR INLET/SCRUBBER
  OUTLET	  A- 14
                                IX

-------
                    LIST OF TABLES (continued)
                                                              Page
TABLE A-14.  SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA--NAVAL AVIATION
               DEPOT, ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA.   LINE M
               FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATOR OUTLET	  A-15

TABLE B-l.   PARAMETERS FOR THE HARD CHROMIUM ELECTRO-
               PLATING MODEL PLANTS	  B-29

TABLE B-2.   ANNUAL OPERATING COST  FACTORS FOR MESH-PAD
               MIST ELIMINATORS, PACKED-BED  SCRUBBERS/
               MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEMS, AND
               FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATORS	  B-30

TABLE B-3.   CAPITAL AND ANNUALIZED COST DATA SOURCES FOR
               MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATORS, PACKED-BED
               SCRUBBERS/MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEMS,
               AND FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATORS	  B-31

TABLE B-4.   CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES PROVIDED BY VENDOR C
               FOR MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATORS WITH MESH PADS
               IN SERIES	  B-32

TABLE B-5.   CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES OF MIST  ELIMINATORS
               WITH MESH PADS IN SERIES	  B-33

TABLE B-6.   ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COSTS OF MIST
               ELIMINATORS WITH MESH PADS IN SERIES	  B-34

TABLE B-7.   ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF MESH-PAD MIST
               ELIMINATOR UNITS FOR NEW AND  EXISTING HARD
               CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL PLANTS	  B-35

TABLE B-8.   ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COSTS OF MESH-PAD MIST
               ELIMINATOR UNITS FOR NEW HARD CHROMIUM
               PLATING MODEL PLANTS	  B-36

TABLE B-9.   ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COSTS OF MESH-PAD MIST
               ELIMINATOR UNITS FOR EXISTING HARD CHROMIUM
               PLATING MODEL PLANTS	  B-37

TABLE B-10.  CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES PROVIDED BY VENDORS A
               AND C FOR PACKED-BED SCRUBBER/MESH-PAD MIST
               ELIMINATOR SYSTEMS	  B-38

TABLE B-ll.  CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES OF PACKED-BED
               SCRUBBER/MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEM
               (VENDOR A)	  B-39

-------
                    LIST OF TABLES (continued)
TABLE B-12.  ANNUALIZED COSTS OF PACKED-BED SCRUBBER/MESH-
               PAD MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEM  (VENDOR A)	   B-40

TABLE B-13.  ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF PACKED-BED
               SCRUBBER/MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEMS
               FOR NEW AND EXISTING HARD CHROMIUM PLATING
               MODEL PLANTS  (VENDOR A)	   B-41

TABLE B-14.  ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COSTS OF PACKED-BED
               SCRUBBER/MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEMS
               FOR NEW HARD CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL  PLANTS
               (VENDOR A)	   B - 42

TABLE B-15.  ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COSTS OF PACKED-BED
               SCRUBBER/MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEMS
               FOR EXISTING HARD CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL
               PLANTS  (VENDOR A)	   B-43

TABLE B-16.  CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES PROVIDED BY MONSANTO
               ENVIRO-CHEM AND CECO FILTERS, INC.,  FOR
               FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATORS	   B-44

TABLE B-17.  ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS FOR FIBER-BED  MIST
               ELIMINATORS	   B-45

TABLE B-18.  ANNUALIZED COSTS OF FIBER-BED MIST
               ELIMINATORS	   B-46

TABLE B-19.  CAPITAL COSTS OF FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATORS
               FOR HARD CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL PLANTS	   B-47

TABLE B-20.  ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR FIBER-BED MIST
               ELIMINATORS FOR NEW HARD CHROMIUM PLATING
               MODEL PLANTS	   B-48

TABLE B-21.  ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR FIBER-BED MIST
               ELIMINATORS FOR EXISTING HARD CHROMIUM
               PLATING OPERATIONS	   B-49

TABLE C-l.   CAPITAL COSTS OF SINGLE PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS
               FOR HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING MODEL
               PLANTS	   C-2

TABLE C-2.   ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR SINGLE  PACKED-BED
               SCRUBBERS  FOR NEW HARD CHROMIUM
               ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS	   C- 3
                                XI

-------
                    LIST OF TABLES (continued)
                                                              Page
TABLE C-3.   ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR SINGLE PACKED-BED
               SCRUBBERS FOR EXISTING HARD CHROMIUM
               ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS	   C-4

TABLE C-4.   CAPITAL COSTS OF MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATORS
               WITH MESH PADS IN SERIES FOR HARD CHROMIUM
               ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS	   C- 5

TABLE C-5.   ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATORS
               WITH MESH PADS IN SERIES FOR NEW HARD
               CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS	   C-6

TABLE C-6.   ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATORS
               WITH MESH PADS IN SERIES FOR EXISTING  HARD
               CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS	   C-7

TABLE C-7.   CAPITAL COSTS OF PACKED-BED SCRUBBER/MESH-PAD
               MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEMS FOR HARD CHROMIUM
               ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS	   C- 8

TABLE C-8.   ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR PACKED-BED SCRUBBER/MESH-
               PAD MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEMS FOR NEW HARD
               CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS	   C-9
TABLE C-9.
TABLE C-10.
TABLE C-ll.
TABLE C-12.
ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR PACKED-BED SCRUBBER/MESH-
  PAD MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEMS FOR EXISTING
  HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS...

CAPITAL COSTS OF FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATORS
  FOR HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING MODEL
  PLANTS	

ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR FIBER-BED MIST
  ELIMINATORS FOR NEW HARD CHROMIUM
  ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS	
ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR FIBER-BED MIST
  ELIMINATORS FOR EXISTING HARD CHROMIUM
  ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS	
                                                              C-10
                                                              C-ll
                                                              C-12
                                                              C-13
                               Xll

-------
               ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT

A         = ampere
Ah        = ampere-hour
°C        = degrees Celsius
cm        = centimeter
CrO-j      = chromium anhydride, commonly known as chromic acid
dscf      = dry standard cubic foot
dscm      = dry standard cubic meter
°F        = degrees Fahrenheit
ft        = foot
ft2       = square foot
ft3       = cubic foot
g         = gram
gal       = gallon
gr        = grain
hr        = hour
hp        = horsepower
in.       = inch
in.2      = square inch
in. w.c.  = inches of water column
kg        = kilogram
kPa       = kilopascal
kW        = kilowatt
kWh       = kilowatt-hour
L         = liter
Ib        = pound
lbf/ft    = pound force per foot
m         = meter
m2        = square meter
m3        = cubic meters
mg        = milligram
mil       = thousandth of an inch
min       = minute
MW        = megawatt
                               xiii

-------
oz        = ounce
^m        = micrometer (micron)
V         = volt
yr        = year
                               xiv

-------
    TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF NEW EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
        USED IN THE HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING INDUSTRY

1.0  INTRODUCTION
     In 1989, the California Air Resources Board (CARS) approved
an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for hexavalent chromium
emissions from chromium plating and anodizing operations.  Under
the ACTM for hard chromium electroplating tanks, emission
reductions are related to the facility-wide emission level
considering any preexisting control.  Facilities with emissions
less than or equal to 0.91 kg/yr (2 Ib/yr) must reduce emissions
from each tank by 95 percent or achieve an emission limit of
0.15 mg/Ah (0.002 gr/Ah).  Facilities with emissions of at least
0.91 kg/yr (2 Ib/yr) but less than 4.5 kg/yr (10 Ib/yr) must
reduce emissions from each tank by 99 percent or achieve an
emission limit of 0.03 mg/Ah (0.005 gr/Ah).  Facilities with
emissions of 4.5 kg/yr  (10 Ib/yr) or greater must reduce
emissions from each tank by 99.8 percent or achieve an emission
limit of 0.006 mg/Ah  (9.3 x 10"4 gr/Ah).
     The effect of this ATCM was to force development of
innovative approaches to control that might achieve higher
reductions than those presently achieved with more conventional
technologies typically applied in chromium electroplating and
anodizing operations.  Vendors of conventional equipment
incorporated the use of composite mesh pads into traditional
control systems in an effort to increase control device
performance.   In addition, based on the high performance levels
of  fiber-bed mist eliminators in controlling sulfuric acid mists,
these systems were examined to determine their applicability and
effectiveness in controlling chromic acid emissions.
     Section 2.0 provides background information for the new
control technologies.  Section 3.0 presents brief descriptions of
each new control technology.  Performance data for each
technology are presented in Section 4.0.  Section 5.0 contains
assessments of cost and environmental impacts associated with
each technology.  Finally, conclusions regarding the

-------
applicability and effectiveness of the new control technologies
are presented in Section 6.0.
2.0  BACKGROUND
2.1  Mesh-Pad Mist Eliminators
     Mesh-pad mist eliminators designed prior to 1986 had a
single mesh pad consisting of layers of woven material with fiber
diameters of 0.09 cm (36 mils).  The units were designed for
vertical gas flow and did not incorporate an internal spray
system for cleaning of the pad.  Because of the tendency of these
units to plug,  they generally were not recommended for
controlling chromic acid mist.  Subsequent generations of mesh-
pad mist eliminators (designed in 1988 - 1989)  incorporated two
or three mesh pads that consisted of material woven from strands
of fiber with the same fiber diameter, which varied between 0.05
and 0.09 cm (20 and 36 mils).  These newer units were equipped
with internal spray systems to clean the pads and were designed
to accommodate the removal of the pads for additional cleaning.
Thus, the plugging potential was minimized.  In addition, these
units were designed to accommodate horizontal gas flow,
permitting better drainage of the system.  The second generation
mesh-pad mist eliminator systems had performance levels that
approximated those obtained through the use of traditional
packed-bed s crubbers.
     In the early 1990's, the performance level of mesh-pad mist
eliminator systems was further enhanced by changing the pad
configuration to facilitate the capture of particles less than
5 /*m (0.20 mil).  The most recent design change involves the use
of a composite mesh pad.  These pads differ from traditional mesh
pads in that the composite pads are woven with layers of material
with varying fiber diameters instead of layers of material with
the same fiber diameter.  The layers in the center of the
composite mesh pad consist of extremely small diameter fibers
(0.01 to 0.02 cm  [4 to 8 mils]).  The layers on either side of
the center are made up of progressively larger diameter fibers
(0.04 to 0.09 cm  [16 to 37 mils]).  The primary purpose of this

-------
configuration is to produce a coalescing effect.  Small mist
droplets that impinge on the pad coalesce into larger droplets as
they travel through the finer mesh layers.  The enlarged
particles can then be easily removed in the back layers of the
pad or in a subsequent stage in the control system.  These pads
may be used in series with other standard types of pads in mist
eliminators, or in conjunction with packed-bed scrubbers, to
capture chromic acid mists.
     When composite mesh pads are used in mist eliminators,
multiple pads (typically two to four) are used in series.  The
design of each pad is determined by the size of the mist droplets
to be collected.  The composite pad is typically the second or
third stage in this type of control system.  Irrigation systems
and provisions for pad removal to facilitate cleaning have been
incorporated to achieve better chromium emission control
efficiencies.
     Traditionally, packed-bed scrubbers used to control chromic
acid mist were horizontal or vertical countercurrent-flow units
equipped with one or two packed beds followed by a chevron-blade
mist eliminator section.  The designs of these conventional
scrubber systems have been upgraded in an effort to increase the
performance level.   Overhead spray systems have been added to
ensure sufficient wetting of the packed bed and to prevent
chromium buildup.  Finally, the addition of a composite mesh pad
section behind the packed bed(s) has made it possible to improve
the overall performance of the scrubber unit and eliminate the
need for a chevron-blade mist eliminator.
2.2  Fiber-Bed Mist Eliminators
     Fiber-bed mist eliminators have been used predominantly to
control acid mists from sulfuric, phosphoric, and nitric acid
plants.  Fiber beds have also been used to capture solid
particulates and mixtures of liquid mists and soluble solids
(e.g.,  sodium chloride,  ammonium nitrate).   The transfer of this
technology to the control of emissions of chromic acid mist from

-------
chromium electroplating and chromic acid anodizing operations has
occurred only recently.
     Fiber-bed mist eliminators typically consist of one or more
fiber beds.  Each bed consists of a hollow cylinder formed from
two concentric screens with the fiber packed into the annular
space between the two screens.   These control systems use
inertial impaction and Brownian diffusion to remove contaminants
from a gas stream.  Fiber-bed units are designed for horizontal,
concurrent gas-liquid flow through the bed.  As the gas stream
flows toward the downstream face of the bed, the acid mist in the
gas stream impacts on the surface of the fibers and drains down
the outer face of the bed to the sump while the cleaned gas flows
up and out the top of the unit.  These systems are equipped with
spray nozzles to reduce the potential for plugging.  In a further
effort to prevent plugging,  most vendors recommend a pre-
filtering system.
3.0  DESCRIPTIONS OF EMISSIONS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
     This section presents basic descriptions and operating
principles for each of the technologies examined.
     The mist eliminator and packed-bed scrubber systems operate
with inertial impaction and direct interception as the primary
control mechanisms.  Inertial impaction involves the collision of
large particles with a stationary surface to which they adhere.
When the mechanism is direct interception, particles attempt to
follow the streamline around the collection surface, but because
of their size and relative velocity, they are intercepted by the
fluid layer that surrounds the collection surface.  Collected
liquid droplets drain to the bottom of the collection device due
to gravity.
     Another control mechanism used in fiber-bed mist eliminators
is Brownian diffusion.  Brownian diffusion is the random movement
of particles due to collisions on a molecular level.  This random
motion places the particles on a collision path with the
collection media.  Brownian diffusion is not a major factor for
particles larger than 3 /zm  (0.12 mil).

-------
3.1  Composite Mesh-Pad Mist Eliminator Systems
     The principal control mechanisms for mesh-pad mist
eliminators are droplet impaction and interception.  Inertial
impaction occurs when larger particles, traveling with sufficient
velocity, collide with the pad filaments and adhere to their
surface.  Other particles, because of their size and relative
velocity, are intercepted by the fluid layer surrounding the
surface of the filament.
     In the composite mesh-pad system, the material layers in the
center of the pad are composed of extremely small-diameter
(0.01 to 0.02 cm  [4 to 8 mil]) fibers.  The material layers on
either side of the center are composed of progressively larger
(0.04 to 0.09 cm  [16 to 37 mil]) diameter fibers.  As the gas
stream flows through the composite mesh pad, the small particles
that escape the collection device upstream of the mesh pad (e.g.,
packed-bed scrubber or other mesh pads) impinge on the composite
pad and coalesce into larger droplets.  This process is
accomplished by using a pad comprised of layers of material with
various fiber diameters and operating the pad at its flood
point.2  The flood point is the condition in which the liquid
flow in the pad is hampered causing liquid to build up in the
pad.  The enlarged particles are then removed in the back side of
the composite mesh pad or in the backup mesh pad downstream of
the composite pad.  When composite mesh pads are used in series,
the pressure drop across the system typically ranges from 1.2 to
1.7 kPa  (5 to 7 in. w.c.).
     The performance of mesh-pad mist eliminators is dependent
upon the fiber diameter, void fraction (amount of free volume),
and the air velocity passing through the pad.  One of the major
factors that affects mesh-pad mist eliminator performance is the
tendency of the unit to plug, with the tendency being inversely
proportional to the size of the fiber.  Regular cleaning of the
pads is critical to optimizing performance.  The void fraction
influences performance because the higher the void fraction,  the

-------
greater the resistance to plugging.  Mesh pads with higher void
fractions can handle heavier contaminant loadings.
     Gas stream velocity affects performance because the
entrained particles must have adequate velocity to collide with
the fibers.  However, gas velocities that are too high can cause
collected particles to be reentrained in the gas stream.
Therefore, gas velocities should be maintained high enough to
optimize collection through inertial impaction yet not cause
reentrainment.
     Composite mesh pads are used in various configurations and
are available through many chromium electroplating equipment
suppliers.
3.1.1  Composite Mesh Pads Used in Series.
     When mesh pads are used in series,  the first stages of the
unit generally serve to reduce the loading on the pads.  The
first stage is sometimes a single or double set of chevron
blades.  These parallel, chevron-shaped baffles are used to
remove the large particles, which constitute the majority of
chromium emissions.  The use of chevron blades reduces the
tendency for the pads to plug.  The chevron-blade section may be
followed by a coarse mesh pad that is used to further reduce the
loading on the composite pad.  This first mesh pad is sometimes
irrigated with water to promote the coalescing (enlargement) of
the mist droplets, which makes the droplets easier to remove.2
The primary purpose of the second pad (composite pad) is to
increase the size of the particles that penetrated the first pad.
The larger particles are then collected or reentrained in the
back side of the second pad.2  The last pad is used to capture
the reentrained material that was not collected by the previous
pads.  In some mesh-pad systems, all the pads are operated dry
with periodic washing to clean the pads.
3.1.2  Composite Mesh Pads Used in Conjunction with Packed-Bed
       Scrubbers.
     Removal of chromic acid mist is accomplished by impingement
of the droplets on the packing material in the upgraded scrubber
                                6

-------
systems.  The velocity of the gas stream is reduced at the
scrubber inlet to maximize impingement efficiency.  Water is
sprayed countercurrent to the flow of the gas stream, thereby
enlarging the mist droplets contained in the gas stream and
causing some droplets to drop to the bottom of the scrubber.  The
gas stream then passes through the packed bed where chromic acid
droplets impinge on the packing material and are washed to the
bottom of the scrubber.  The packing material used in the newer
scrubbers has a high surface area-to-volume ratio  (presenting
more impaction opportunities) and the capacity to distribute,
collect, and redisperse the scrubbing liquid quickly.  Composite
mesh pads,  which are located behind the packed bed, are used to
remove any reentrained droplets that are carried over from the
packed-bed section, as well as particles that are too small to be
captured by the packed bed.  One or two coarse mesh pads follow
the composite pad and are used to remove any enlarged droplets
that are reentrained from the composite pad.
3.2  Fiber-Bed Mist Eliminators
     Fiber-bed mist eliminators remove .contaminants from a gas
stream using the mechanisms of inertial impaction and Brownian
diffusion.   When inertial impaction is the principal control
mechanism,  fiber-bed mist eliminators are more efficient than
other control devices using this mechanism  (e.g., typical mesh-
pad mist eliminators and packed-bed scrubbers) because of the
higher surface area-to-volume ratios.  These higher ratios result
in greater obstruction of the gas flow, permitting additional
opportunities for impaction of the mist droplets onto the bed
fibers.  Fiber beds designed for contaminant removal by Brownian
diffusion as well as inertial impaction are the most efficient
mist eliminators currently available.
     Fiber-bed units are designed for horizontal, concurrent gas-
liquid flow through the bed.  The contaminated gas stream flows
toward the downstream face of the bed.  The acid mist in the gas
stream impacts on the surface of the fibers and drains down the
outer face of the bed to the sump while the cleaned gas flows up

-------
and out the top of the unit.  Fiber-bed units are equipped with a
water spray system to wash down any large particulates that may
clog the unit.  The spray is activated in response to an increase
in pressure drop over that specified in the design of the unit.
Pressure drops for impaction units range from 0.15 to 2.0 kPa
(0.5 to 8 in. w.c.),  and pressure drops for Brownian diffusion
units range from 1.2  to 3.7 kPa (5 to 15 in. w.c.).
     The major factors affecting the performance of fiber-bed
mist eliminators are  the velocity of the inlet gas stream,
pressure drop across  the fiber bed, and the water recirculation
rate.  With impaction-type units,  the velocity of the gas flowing
to the unit must be maintained above a certain lower limit
because of the decrease in efficiency of inertial impaction at
low flow rates.3  This lower limit varies, depending on the
specific design of the impaction bed, but typically ranges from
30 m/min (100 ft/min)  for some fiber beds to 110 m/min
(350 ft/min)  for other beds.4  The Brownian-diffusion type units
have no lower limit on gas flow rate because mist collection
increases as the gas  flow rate approaches zero.3  The maximum gas
flow rate in fiber-bed mist eliminators is defined by the point
at which: (1) collection efficiency begins to drop below
acceptable levels, or (2) the gas-phase pressure drop becomes
excessive.    Performance may be affected as a result of plugging
of the bed if the water spray system is not activated in response
to an increase in the pressure drop.
     Most vendors do not recommend fiber-bed mist eliminators as
the first stage of the control system because of their tendency
to plug.  It is recommended that coarse pre-filtering be provided
upstream of the fiber beds to prevent plugging.  The pre-
filtering devices range from a series of mesh pads to a complete
packed-bed scrubber unit.
4.0  EMISSIONS TEST DATA
     This section presents the results of full-scale emission
testing conducted on commercial units used to control chromium
emissions from hard chromium electroplating and chromic acid

-------
anodizing operations.  Samples to be analyzed for hexavalent and
total chromium were obtained through isokinetic sampling using a
modified EPA Method 5 sampling train (40 CFR Part 60 -
Appendix A).  The train was modified by eliminating the filter,
using glass-lined probes and glass nozzles, and using 0.1 normal
sodium hydroxide instead of water in the impingers.  Method 5,
which also requires the use of EPA Methods 1 through 4, provides
detailed procedures, equipment criteria, and other considerations
necessary to obtain accurate and representative emissions
samples.  The collected samples were analyzed using ion
chromatography with a post-column reactor for hexavalent chromium
and atomic absorption for total chromium.
     In two of the emissions tests described in this section,
both hexavalent and total chromium were measured.  In the
remaining two, only total chromium was measured.  Results of the
emissions tests performed by EPA to evaluate performances of
control techniques for chromium emissions indicate that
hexavalent chromium constitutes the majority of total chromium
emissions from chromium electroplating and anodizing operations.5
Thus, for those tests in which only total chromium was measured,
the results are assumed to be representative of hexavalent
chromium levels.
     More detailed information about each test is presented in
tabular form in Appendix A.
4.1  Composite Mesh-Pad Tests
4.1.1  Mesh-Pad Mist Eliminator--Precision Engineering. Seattle.
       Washington
     Emission source tests were conducted by EPA at Precision
Engineering on December 17-19, 1991, to evaluate the performance
of a state-of-the-art mesh-pad mist eliminator.  Precision
Engineering is a medium size job shop that performs hard chromium
plating of industrial rolls, hydraulic cylinders, and
miscellaneous small parts.
     4.1.1.1  Process Description.   The plating shop typically
operates 24 hours per day, 5 days per week.  There are six hard

-------
chromium plating tanks at this facility.   During the source
tests, Tanks 1,  2,  and 7 were tested.   Table l presents the
dimensions and operating parameters for each process tank.   All
three plating tanks are divided into two cells and each cell is
equipped with a rectifier to control the current flow.   Current
ratings (per cell)  of the rectifiers are 5,000 A,  3,000 A,  and
10,000 A for Tanks 1, 2, and 7, respectively.  The plating
solution in each tank consists of chromic acid at a concentration
of 250 g/L (33 oz/gal).  The temperature of the plating solution
is maintained at approximately 60°C (140°F).
   TABLE  1.  DIMENSIONS AND OPERATING  PARAMETERS  FOR THE HARD
        CHROMIUM  PLATING TANKS AT  PRECISION ENGINEERING,
                       SEATTLE,  WASHINGTON
Dimensions
Tank (1, w, d) ,
No. m (ft)
1 2
(6.5
2 2
(6.5
7 1
(4.0
.0,
, 4
.0,
, 4
.2,
, 5
1.
.2,
1.
.2,
1.
.9,
3, 3
12.
3, 3
12.
8, 5
18.
.7
0)
.7
0)
.5
0)
Capacity,
L (gal)
9,
(2,
9,
(2,
11,
(3,
280
450)
280
450)
830
120)
Maximum rated
current per
cell, A
5,000

3,000

10,000

     All of the plating tanks are serviced by overhead hoists
that are used to transfer parts in and out of the tanks.  Heating
and cooling systems are located in each tank to maintain uniform
solution temperature.  In addition, each of the tanks is equipped
with an air agitation system to aid in maintaining uniform bath
concentration and temperature.
     4.1.1.2  Air Pollution Control.2'6
     A schematic of the ventilation system and control device
servicing the plating tanks is shown in Figure 1.  The system was
installed in 1991.  Each tank is equipped with a double-sided
hood for ventilation.  Moisture extractors are located in the
                                10

-------
•H

 h
 0)
 en

w

 c
 o
•H
 W
•H
 u
 0)
 ^
(X
 0)
•P
 w
 >1
 W
 c
 o
 o

T3

 (0

 c
 o
•H
•H
4-1
 C   •
 0)  C
 >  o
    4J
 0)  CP
£  C
4J  "-I
    JC
14-1  U
 O  (0
4J  0)
 (0  r~\
 e  4J
 (1)  4J
A  (0
 O  Q)
w  w
1-1

 0)

 3

•H

-------
hood uptakes to remove the coarser mist droplets from the exhaust
stream, thereby reducing the inlet loading to the mist
eliminator.  Tanks 1 and 2 are ducted together to form one inlet
leg to the mist eliminator, while Tank 7 is ducted separately to
form another inlet leg to the mist eliminator.  The two inlet
legs join just prior to the inlet plenum of the mist eliminator.
     The mesh-pad mist eliminator is located on the roof of the
plating shop and is a first generation Spectra V manufactured by
KCH Services, Inc.   The unit consists of a set of chevron-blade
baffles followed by a series of three mesh pads.  The mesh pads
were manufactured by Kimre, Inc.*  The first pad in the series is
a coarse mesh that consists of material woven from strands of
fiber with the same fiber diameter, which ranges from 0.04 to
0.09 cm (16 to 37 mils).   This pad removes the majority of the
chromic acid mist particles.  The second pad  (the composite mesh
pad) serves to enlarge the size of the particles that penetrate
the first pad, and these particles then impinge on the back side
of the second pad and coalesce into larger droplets.  This pad is
comprised of layers of material with fiber diameters typically
ranging from 0.005 to 0.04 cm (2 to 16 mils).  The material
layers in the center of this second pad contain the smallest
diameter fibers, with the layers on either side of the
center containing progressively larger diameter fibers.  The
purpose of the third pad, which is identical to the first pad, is
to remove any reentrained droplets carried over from the second
pad.
     The design pressure drop across the mist eliminator is
1.7 kPa (7 in. w.c.).  An increase in pressure drop above the
normal operating range for a given pad indicates that the pad
     *Mention of trade names or commercial products is not
     intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for
     use.
                                12

-------
needs to be washed down to remove chromium that has built up on
the pad.  This is accomplished with a series of spray nozzles
located in front of each mesh pad.
     4.1.1.3  Process Conditions During Testing.6  Three sample
runs were conducted at each of the two inlet locations  (A and B)
and at the outlet (stack, C) of the mist eliminator.  Testing at
the three locations was performed simultaneously.  Each test run
was 4 to 6 hours in duration.  Process operating parameters
monitored during each sample run included the voltage, current,
ampere-hours, and plating solution temperature for each plating
tank in operation.  Average values for each sample run are
presented in Table 2.  Hydraulic cylinders were plated during
each test run.  The surface areas of the parts plated during the
test program are included in Table 2.   Pressure drops across each
mesh pad and across the overall unit were monitored during each
test run and no increase in pressure drop was noted.
     4.1.1.4  Results of Emissions Testing.6  Results of the
emissions testing are presented in Tables 3a and 3b.  Total
chromium emissions from Tanks 1 and 2 measured at Inlet A
averaged 0.35 mg/dscm (0.15 x 10~3 gr/dscf), or 5.6 x 10~3 kg/hr
(12 x 10 ~3 Ib/hr).  At Inlet B, total chromium emissions from
Tank 7 averaged 0.15 mg/dscm (0.06 x 10'3 gr/dscf), or
1.3 x 10~3 kg/hr (2.9 x 10~3 Ib/hr).  Total chromium emissions
measured at the outlet of the mesh-pad mist eliminator averaged
0.011 mg/dscm (5 x 10"6 gr/dscf), or 0.27 x 10"3 kg/hr
(0.58 x 10"3 Ib/hr).
     Hexavalent chromium emissions from Tanks 1 and 2 measured at
Inlet A averaged 0.34 mg/dscm  (0.15 x 10"3 gr/dscf), or
5.3 x 10~3 kg/hr (12 x 10"3 Ib/hr).  Hexavalent chromium
emissions from Tank 7 at Inlet B averaged 0.15 mg/dscm
(0.06 x 10'3 gr/dscf), or 1.3 x 10'3 kg/hr  (2.9 x 10"3 Ib/hr).
At the outlet of the mesh-pad mist eliminator, hexavalent
chromium emissions averaged 0.010 mg/dscm (0.005 x 10"3 gr/dscf),
or 0.25 x 10'3 kg/hr  (0.55 x 10"3 Ib/hr).
                                13

-------
TABLE 2.  AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS DURING EACH EMISSIONS
   TEST RUN AT PRECISION ENGINEERING, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Operating
Run Tank
No . No .
1 1A
IB
2A
2B
7A
7B
2 1A
IB
2A
2B
7A
7B
3 1A
IB
2A
2B
7A
7B
voltage,
V
7
7
7
7
-
8
6
6
7
7
6
6
6
6
7
7
6
7
.0
.0
.6
.6

.0
.4
.3
.2
.4
.6
.4
.4
.4
.7
.8
.0
.3
Operating
current ,
A
4
3
2
1

7
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
7
,300
,700
,300
,400

,000
,600
,400
,700
,850
,300
,000
,970
,800
,000
,700
,000
,200
Temperature Surface
of plating area
solution,
°C ( ° F)
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
plated,
m2 (ft2)
368

167

332

368

167

469

260

167

474

(3,

(1,

(3,

(3,

(1,

(5,

(2,

(1,

(5,

960)

800)

570)

960)

800)

050)

800)

800)

100)

                             14

-------
25

O

M

CO

H

U
   w
PEH
S to
s w
§H
E
CO
a
   o
rO
ro
   co

.

GINEER
E
         U
         CD
             E
             3



             2
            £
             o
             £
             u

             I



             s
             _c
             u

             a
                ,i«
                   "So

                §  d
                otf  Z
                       00  VO
                       oo  •*  en  »*j

                       o  q  o  o

                       dodo
                       ts  >«  f>  r*
                       en  ts    r-  >rt

                          R  R  S
                      o  —  \c  ^
                      O  oo  ^  i**


                      dodo
                      in  •*  i/i  i*>


                      dodo
                          O  SO  tf)

                          oo" rJ  ^
                          fS  f)  f)
                       Ov  O  Ov
                       fS  —  00
                       •
                                 <
                                       tj

                                       c
                                       I
                                       C
                                       M u
 >  —
 a  u

 S.E


l!
                                       sr w
                                       2  g
                                       o  £
                                       c .5
                                       ts  «
                                       ii
                                         -s
                                       «s  *

                                       i-s
                                       *  g
                                       S-§

                                       P

                                       s  a
                                       8-2
                                       «  g
                                       §1
                                       u  oo
                                       g .£
                                       'o "D.
                                       e  E
                                                    o* >:
                                                    El ^
,i *
t >>
- g
feS 'o




G
^
a
O





E
3
•3
1 s
•sl
__ w
c .2
u g
1 u
S
U


j;
^
"Sb
I1
t_ i"*^,
£«?
-£oO
•^ C

E
1
gp
E
s^

1 1
a


E


CO
35
~e



3
*e
g M
1.1
~* W
c .2
J2 E
CS u
>
«
X
V


o
^
•fc

^
"SbO
•^ ^
E
%
^
60

« <
CA
U — '
Ii


E





^
c


3
^
U
II
W o
>
«
M
U

3
0
4=
<
oo
E
i'-r
"oo o
J" sT-

E
1
oo
E
•5
to ^
B. t-
3
u
§ d
Oi -Z.

m oo r- »\
^t »n t~- i*5
Os Os ON 9\
ON 
f> ts 

in m r- i*)
d d d d

§ i i i
*•*»*,
fS 00 tS ^
•* r4 m <»»

— O 00 C)
— o wi r4
•* 9 r^ >«
d d d o
vO fS fS fl
•* •>* r-' 1*5


OS OO T»- ^

d d d o

r-" rl oo" »T
VO •* tn ^


U
— O en <

                                                                                              u CL
                                                 15

-------
     In calculating the overall removal efficiency of the mesh-
pad mist eliminator, the total mass emission rates for Inlets A
and B were compared to the outlet mass emission rate.  The
apparent effectiveness of the moisture extractors is indicated by
the inlet loading values, which, despite the relatively high
process current, are unusually low.  The removal efficiency
averaged 95.9 percent for both total chromium and hexavalent
chromium.  The average total current applied to the tanks during
outlet testing was 83,500 Ah.  Therefore, the process emission
rates based on total and hexavalent chromium measurements were
0.015 mg/Ah  (2.3 x 10"4 gr/Ah) and 0.014 mg/Ah (2.2 x 10'4
gr/Ah).
4.1.2  Mesh-Pad Mist Eliminator--Monroe Auto Equipment. Hartwell.
       Georgia7
     Source testing was conducted at Monroe Auto Equipment,
Hartwell, Georgia, on December 18 - 20, 1991, to evaluate the
performance of a composite mesh-pad mist eliminator.  Emissions
testing was performed by IEA, Inc., of Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, and observed by a representative of the U.S. EPA.
The Monroe Auto Equipment plating operation uses a chemical fume
suppressant to inhibit misting.  Therefore, testing was performed
with and without the fume suppressant in the plating bath.
     Monroe Auto Equipment performs hard chromium electroplating
of shock absorbers of various sizes.  The plating line is
typically operated 5 days per week and 16 hours per day.
     4.1.2.1  Process Description.7'8  The shock absorber rods
are loaded into a carrier, six at a time, and the carrier is
conveyed from tank to tank through the plating line.  There is
one chromium electroplating tank in the plating line; it is 1.4 m
(4.5 ft) wide by 9.1 m (30 ft) long by 0.91 m (3.0 ft) deep and
holds about 11,400 L  (3,000 gal) of plating solution.  The
plating solution in the tank contains chromic acid in a
concentration of 240 g/L  (32 oz/gal).  The normal operating bath
temperature is 54°C (130°F) .  The plating tank is equipped with
heating and cooling systems and is air agitated to maintain a
                                16

-------
uniform plating bath temperature and composition.  The tank is
serviced by an 11,000 A, 12 V rectifier and is operated at a
current ranging from 3,300 A to 10,000 A depending on the length
of the shock absorber rods.
     4.1.2.2  Air Pollution Control.2'7'9  The chromium emissions
from the plating tank are exhausted to a mesh-pad mist eliminator
system consisting of two sets of double-sided chevron blades
followed by a series of three mesh pads.  The mesh pads were
manufactured by Kimre, Inc.   The control system, a Spectra V,
manufactured by KCH Services, Inc. ,  was installed in November of
1991.
     The first pad in the series of pads is a coarse mesh that
typically consists of material woven from strands of fiber with
the same fiber diameter, which varies between 0.04 and 0.09 cm
(16 and 37 mils).   This pad removes the majority of the chromic
acid mist particles.  The second pad (the composite mesh pad)
serves to enlarge the size of the particles that penetrate the
first pad, and these larger particles then impinge on the back
side of the second pad.  This pad is comprised of layers of
material with fiber diameters typically ranging from 0.005 to
0.04 cm (2 to 16 mils).  The material layers in the center of
this second pad contain the smallest diameter fibers, with the
layers on either side of the center containing progressively
larger diameter fibers.  The purpose of the third pad, which is
identical to the first pad, is to remove any reentrained droplets
carried over from the second pad.
     The mesh-pad mist eliminator system is designed to
accommodate a flow rate of 800 m3/min (28,000 ft3/min) and has a
design pressure drop across the entire system of 1.3 kPa  (5.25
in. w.c.).  The control system is operated dry but is equipped
     *Mention of trade names or commercial products is not
     intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for
     use.
                                17

-------
with a spray system to wash the individual pads when the pressure
drop across the system increases.
     During the emissions testing, a chemical fume suppressant
(an M & T Fumetrol 210 combination foam blanket and wetting
agent*) was used during half of the emissions test runs.  The
'foam is designed to inhibit chromic acid misting from the plating
bath by trapping the mist in the foam layer.  The wetting agent
inhibits misting by lowering the surface tension of the plating
bath, allowing the gases to escape at the surface with less of a
bursting effect.
     4.1.2.3  Process Conditions During Testing.7  Six emissions
test runs were conducted at the inlet and outlet of the mesh-pad
mist eliminator system to characterize the overall performance.
Each test run was approximately two hours in duration.  Test Runs
l, 3, and 4 were performed when no fume suppressant was used, and
test Runs 2, 5, and 6 were performed when the combination foam
blanket and wetting agent was used in the bath.  Table 4 presents
the average operating parameters  (voltage, current, and
temperature of the plating solution) monitored during each test
run.
     The pressure drop across the mesh-pad mist eliminator system
did not increase during any of the test runs; therefore, no
washing of the pads was necessary.  The foam blanket used during
test Runs 2, 5, and 6 was maintained at a thickness between 3 and
8 cm (l and 3 in.) with the heavier layers in the corners of the
tank.
     4.1.2.4  Results of Emissions Testing.7  Table 5 presents
the performance data for the mesh-pad mist eliminator system
tested at Monroe Auto Equipment.  Emissions measured at the inlet
      Mention of trade names or commercial products is not
     intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for
     use.
                                18

-------
     TABLE 4.  AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS MONITORED DURING
        EACH EMISSIONS TEST RUN AT MONROE AUTO EQUIPMENT,
                        HARTWELL, GEORGIA
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Operating
voltage,
V
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.3
7.2
7.2
Operating
current,
A
6,800
6,800
6,800
6,800
10,100
10,200
Temperature
of plating
solution,
°C (°F)
141
141
141
140
144
143
when a fume suppressant was not used on the plating bath averaged
0.95 mg/dscm  (4.2 x 10"4 gr/dscf),  or 41.6 x 10~3 kg/hr
(91.7 x 10~3 Ib/hr).   Emissions measured at the outlet of the
mesh-pad mist eliminator system when a fume suppressant was not
used averaged 0.011 mg/dscm (0.5 x 10"5 gr/dscf), or
0.52 x 10"3 kg/hr  (1.1 x 10"3 Ib/hr).  The removal efficiency of
the mesh-pad mist eliminator control system in the absence of a
fume suppressant averaged 98.7 percent.  The average total
current applied to the electroplating tank during outlet testing
averaged 13,600 Ah.  Therefore, the process emission rate, based
on total chromium measurements, was 0.079 mg/Ah  (1 x 10~3 gr/Ah).
     When a fume suppressant was used, emissions measured at the
inlet to the mesh-pad mist eliminator system ranged from
0.17 mg/dscm to 0.60 mg/dscm (8 x 10"5 to 26 x 10"5 gr/dscf), or
7.35 x 10"3 to 26.3 x 10"3 kg/hr (16.2 x 10~3 to 60.0 x 10"3
Ib/hr).  Emissions measured at the inlet when the foam blanket
was used averaged 0.38 mg/dscm (16 x 10"5 gr/dscf), or  16.7 x
10"3 kg/hr  (36.9 x 10"3 Ib/hr).
     The average of emissions measured at the outlet of the
control device when the fume suppressant was used was
                                19

-------



S
ctf

^
2
H
S
3 ^
f^
**•! rh
FH «
rrl O
fVl
S u

93
*l
5^ ^
w
^ FH
EH G
* 2
fc H
,
S c
U







*^
«
3
O









in
C
o
'w
•|
U
E
3
g
•C
U
"c3

r^




1



§0
** \^f




E

•o
"eb
E
t/3
§ c
If
U









^.,
"c














in
C
_O
in
1
E
3
'£
e
j=
U
3
£





_c

1


Of) ®

E
•o
>
E



^i

ON 00 00 OO sO 00 \O t"*

'^O 00 Os t*^ r^ c^i i^> ^f
oqqo qoqo
dodo dodo



dodo Q d d o





§fSj f^j ^M \f} ^, ^^ Q£
o 5 o 8800
dodo dodo*

§8§! §s|§
r*")r*"}r'")f*} f*^OOoO
— _^-^. — ^  | N « . >



c
j-
O
S
,0
'o
.1
o
l£
U
00
c
'&
£
o
"8
in
in
So
2
U
IS
T3
g

1)
^<
1
t.
O
s emissi
i
_
2
c:
1
C3
"5
_O
U
CB
<§
'o
.1
U
S
LU
a
20

-------
0.008 mg/dscm  (0.3 x 10"5 gr/dscf), or 0.36 x 10"3 kg/hr
(0.79 x 10 ~3 Ib/hr).  The removal efficiency of the mesh-pad mist
eliminator system when a fume suppressant was used averaged
97.5 percent.  The average total current applied to the tank
during outlet testing was 18,100 Ah.  Therefore, the process
emission rate, based on total chromium measurements, was
0.041 mg/Ah  (1 x 10"3 gr/Ah).
     The data presented in Table 5 indicate a lower emission rate
at the inlet when the combination foam blanket and wetting agent
was present in the plating tank.  These decreased inlet
concentrations may have resulted in slightly lower mesh-pad mist
eliminator chromium removal efficiencies for the runs associated
with the use of the fume suppressant.  However, the performance
of the overall system remained the same, as indicated by the
outlet concentration levels for all six runs.  This suggests that
use of the fume suppressant represents a redundant level of
control.
4.1.3  Packed-Bed Scrubber/Mesh-Pad Mist Eliminator System--Remco
     Hydraulics.  Inc..  Willits. California10
     In February 1989,  Remco Hydraulics, Inc. installed a control
system consisting of a packed-bed scrubber with a chevron-blade
section to control emissions from their chromium electroplating
operations.   Emission tests showed that this control system could
not achieve California's proposed hexavalent chromium standard of
0.006 mg/Ah.  The system was then modified by eliminating the
chevron-blade section and installing a two-stage mesh-pad mist
eliminator.   The modified system was tested in August 1989 but
again failed to meet the proposed standard.  It was suspected
that bypass problems due to seal degradation were probably
contributing to the inadequate performance levels.  Both mesh
pads were replaced with new pads, which were installed in a
housing with a double seal system to eliminate the bypass
problems.   A series of spray nozzles was added to the unit for
continuous pad irrigation.  Emissions testing was conducted
                                21

-------
June, 1991, and the control system met the required emission
level.
     The U.S. EPA directed the source testing of the packed-bed
scrubber/mesh-pad mist eliminator system at Remco Hydraulics,
Inc., Willits,  California on June 19-21,  1991.  The performance
of the emission control system,  which incorporates the use of a
composite mesh pad, was determined by testing at the inlet and
outlet of the system.
     Remco is a large job shop that performs hard chromium
electroplating of hydraulic cylinders, shock absorbers, offshore
equipment, and accumulators.  The shop typically operates 5 days
per week, 16 hours per day, and 52 weeks per year.
     4.1.3.1  Process Description.10  There are seven hard
chromium electroplating tanks at this facility.  Table 6 presents
the descriptions and maximum operating parameters for each of
these tanks.  The plating solution in each tank consists of
chromic acid at a concentration of 240 g/L (32 oz/gal), and
sulfuric acid,  a catalyst, at a concentration of 2.4 g/L
(0.32 oz/gal).   The normal operating bath temperature range is
49°C to 54°C (120°F to 130°F).  All tanks are equipped with
heating and cooling systems and are air agitated to maintain
uniform plating bath temperature and composition.  Tanks 1 and 2
are divided into two cells with one rectifier used to control the
current flow in each cell.  Tanks 3 through 5 are each controlled
by one rectifier, and Tanks 6 and 7 are each controlled by two
rectifiers.
     4.1.3.2  Air Pollution Control.10  Tanks 1 and 2 are
equipped with double-sided hoods and the round tanks  (Nos. 3
through 7) are equipped with circular hoods.  During the tests,
the ventilation system  appeared to be effective in directing the
mist from the plating tanks to the control device.  The chromium
emissions from the plating tanks are exhausted to the packed-bed
scrubber/mesh-pad mist eliminator system located on a mezzanine
beside the plating tanks.  The capture and control system was
                                22

-------
  TABLE  6.   DIMENSIONS AND OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR THE SEVEN
    HARD CHROMIUM PLATING TANKS AT REMCO HYDRAULICS,  INC.,
                      WILLITS,  CALIFORNIA
Maximum
Dimensions, rated
(1, w, d) or voltage
Tank (dia, ht) , Capacity, per cell,
No. m (ft) L (gal) V
l 4.1,1.5
(13.3, 4.9,
2 3.7, 1.7
(12.0, 5.5,
3 0.91
(3.0,
4 1.2,
(4.0,
5 0.91
(3.0,
6 1.2,
(4.0,
7a 1.2,
(4.0,
, 2.1
7.0)
, 2.1
6.9)
, 9.4
31.0)
11.6
38.0)
, 6.1
20.0)
15.2
50.0)
18.3
60.0)
11,360 2 @ 15
(3,000)
11,360 2 @ 15
(3,000)
6,060 15
(1,600)
13,250 15
(3,500)
4,000 15
(1,060)
17,790 2 @ 15
(4,700)
21,580 2 @ 15
(5,700)
Maximum rated
current
per cell,
A
10,000; 3,000

12,000; 3,000

8,000

16,000

8,000

2 @ 12,000

2 @ 12,000

lPlating  tank  was  not  operated during the emission test.
                              23

-------
manufactured by Duall Industries, Inc.*   The mesh pads were
manufactured by Kimre, Inc.*
     Packing depth in more conventional scrubbers is about 0.30 m
(1.0 ft).  The scrubber at this facility has a packed-bed 1.8 m
(6.0 ft) deep, followed by the mesh-pad mist eliminator section
located directly behind the scrubber.  Because of the extended
depth of the packed-bed, the scrubber is also equipped with an
overhead spray system in which spray nozzles are used to ensure
sufficient wetting of the bed packing media.  The unusually deep
packed bed was installed to meet the State of California's
proposed regulation governing hexavalent chromium emissions.
     Figure 2 presents a detailed schematic of the control
system.  The plating tanks are ventilated by a 50-hp fan located
downstream of the scrubber.  The design airflow rate of the
scrubber is 850 m3/min  (30,000 ft3/min).  The scrubbing water
flow rate is approximately 1,140 L/min (300 gal/min).  The design
pressure drop across the entire control system (packed-bed
scrubber and mesh-pad mist eliminator) is 1.5 kPa (6.0 in. w.c.).
     Within the scrubber system, the velocity of the gas stream
is reduced to less than 150 m/min (500 ft/min),  and the gas
stream is humidified by a stream of water, which is sprayed
countercurrent to the gas flow through 22 spray nozzles.  The
saturated gas stream then passes through a packed bed consisting
of spherical polypropylene packing.   The bed is approximately
2.4 m  (8.0 ft) high, 3.0 m (10 ft) wide, and 1.8 m  (6.0 ft) deep.
The design pressure drop across the bed packing media is 0.30 kPa
(1.2 in. w.c.).  Entrained mist and water droplets impinge on the
packing and drain to the recirculation tank.  A series of 5 water
lines with 10 spray nozzles per line are located over the packed
     *Mention of trade names or commercial products is not
     intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for
     use.
                                24

-------
                                                                      (0
                                                                      c
                                                                      1-1
                                                                      o
                                                                      (t-i
                                                                      (0
                                                                      u
                                                                      U
                                                                      C
                                                                      M
                                                                      W
                                                                      U
                                                                      3
                                                                      (0
                                                                      O
                                                                      U
                                                                      E
                                                                      (1)
                                                                     .p
                                                                      (C

                                                                      e
                                                                      0)
                                                                     •P
                                                                      w
                                                                     4J
                                                                      C
                                                                      o
                                                                      U

                                                                     14-1
                                                                      o

                                                                      o
                                                                     •1-t
                                                                     .p
                                                                      ID
                                                                      E
                                                                      0)
                                                                     £
                                                                      O
                                                                     CO
                                                                      Q)
                                                                      U
                                                                      3
25
                                                                     fc,

-------
bed.  The spray system is used for complete wetting of the
packing to prevent chromium buildup and to aid in chromium
removal.
     Behind the packed bed, a mist elimination section removes
entrained water droplets.  The first stage of this section allows
large droplets to settle by gravity to the bottom of the
scrubber.  The next stage consists of a composite mesh pad
followed by a backup mesh pad.  In the composite mesh pad, the
fibers in the center of the pad are 0.01 to 0.02 cm (4 to 8 mils)
in diameter.  The diameters of the fibers in the layers on either
side of the center range from 0.04 to 0.09 cm (16 to 37 mils).
Small particles that escaped the packed bed coalesce into large
droplets as they pass through the inner layers of the pad.  The
enlarged particles are then removed in the back section of the
composite pad or in the backup mesh pad.  The backup mesh pad has
multiple layers of material with fibers 0.9 cm (37 mils) in
diameter.  Each of the mesh pads is split into two sections, each
approximately 2.4 m (8 ft)  high and 0.09 m (3.7 ft) wide.  The
composite mesh pad is 16.5 cm (6.5 in.) thick, and the backup pad
is 6.1 cm (2.4 in.) thick.   The design pressure drop across the
mesh pads is 1.2 kPa  (4.75 in. w.c.).  The design of the mesh-pad
section specified continuous irrigation of the composite mesh
pad.  The backup pad is designed to be washed down on an as-
needed basis.
     4.1.3.3  Process Conditions During Testing.10  Three mass
emission test runs were conducted simultaneously at the inlet and
outlet of the packed-bed scrubber/mesh-pad mist eliminator system
to characterize the overall performance of the control system.
Six of the seven chromium electroplating tanks ducted to the
control system were in operation, and the process was operating
normally during the tests.   Table 7 presents the average
operating parameters monitored during each emissions test run.
     Prior to testing, the exhaust rate through the scrubber was
determined to be less than half of the design air flow rate.
Modifications made to increase the exhaust rate included
                                26

-------
TABLE 7.  AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS MONITORED DURING EACH
EMISSIONS TEST RUN AT REMCO HYDRAULICS, INC., WILLITS, CALIFORNIA
Run Tank
No . No .
1 1
1
2
2





2 1
1
2
2





3 1
1
2
2





-
-
-
-
3
4
5
6

-
-
-
-
3
4
5
6

-
-
A
B
A
B





A
B
A
B





A
B
-A
-
3
4
5
6

B





Surface area
plated,
m2 (ft2)
1
0.
1
1
3
3
3
4

1
0.
1
1
3
3
3
4

1
0.
1
1
3
3
3
4

.4
95
.9
.1
.3
.3
.3
.8

.4
95
.9
.1
.3
.3
.3
.8

.4
95
.9
.1
.3
.3
.3
.8

(15)
(10)
(20)
(12)
(36)
(36)
(36)
(51)

(15)
(10)
(20)
(12)
(36)
(36)
(36)
(51)

(15)
(10)
(20)
(12)
(36)
(36)
(36)
(51)

Operating
voltage,
V
8.
8.
9.
8.
7.
12
7.
11
11
8.
8.
9.
8.
7.
11
7.
11
11
8.
8.
9.
8.
7.
11
7.
11
11
0
3
0
0
7
.1
1
.9
.8
0
4
6
0
4
.4
0
.5
.5
0
4
6
0
7
.2
2
.4
.2
Operating
current,
A
8,
2,
8,
2,
6,
10,
7,
7,
5,
8,
2,
9,
2,
5,
10,
7,
7,
5,
8,
2,
9,
2,
6,
10,
7,
6,
5,
600
700
800
700
300
900
300
400
700
500
700
400
700
800
600
400
100
800
300
700
600
700
000
400
300
700
400
Temperature
of plating
solution,
°C (°F)
52
52
53
53
51
59
56
57
57
52
53
52
52
52
59
55
58
58
49
49
51
51
49
57
53
52
52
(126)
(126)
(127)
(127)
(124)
(139)
(133)
(134)
(134)
(126)
(127)
(126)
(126)
(125)
(138)
(131)
(137)
(137)
(121)
(121)
(123)
(123)
(121)
(135)
(127)
(125)
(125)
                                27

-------
increasing the fan speed and shutting down the recirculation
sprays to the composite mesh pad.  These procedures increased the
exhaust rate to approximately 84 percent of the design rate,
allowing the scrubber to operate within its intended gas velocity
range.  The adjustments also resulted in the capture efficiency
of the ventilation system being sufficient to service all six of
the operating plating tanks.   The shutting down of the
recirculation sprays to the composite mesh pad lowered the
pressure drop across the pad to about 50 percent of the design
value.  Nevertheless, the scrubber/mist eliminator system was
operating at or near optimal conditions during the course of the
testing.  Because the unit was designed to have continuous
washdown, the vendor was contacted to determine the potential
effects on the performance of the unit if only periodic washdown
were used.  The vendor advised that periodic washdown would be
sufficient but recommended that the pressure drop across the unit
be closely monitored to minimize the plugging potential.  The
pressure drop was monitored throughout the testing period and no
increase in pressure drop was observed.
     During emissions testing, dummy rods were plated in each of
the tanks.  The total surface area of the parts plated during
each emission test run is given in Table 7.
     Pressure drops across the packing media and mesh pads were
monitored during each test run.  The average pressure drops
across the packing media and mesh pads were 0.30 kPa
(1.2 in. w.c.) and 0.60 kPa  (2.3 in. w.c.), respectively.
     4.1.3.4.  Results of Emissions Testing.10  Measurements to
determine emissions concentrations at the inlet to the scrubber
system were made at two locations.  Measurements taken at Inlet A
represent emissions vented from Tanks 1 and 2, while Inlet B
readings measured emissions vented from the remaining 4 tanks.
     Performance data for the control system are summarized in
Tables 8a and 8b.  Total chromium emissions measured at inlet A
of the control device averaged 131 mg/dscm  (0.057 gr/dscf), or
                                28

-------
CD EH
U CO
oo



•J



g

CQ



1
    E
    3


   I

    u

   3

   (2
          00






          E


         •a
                  *_

               e  i
                  M
   j=





ll
a.  c

   u
                  DO





                  h.




                  ~00
                  1
               §  d
               Dtf Z
                     8^

                     00
                    rr T
                     o o

                     "x "x
                     m oo
                     in ro
                     ri —
                     % B
                     d d
                           o o
                            X  X

                             "">
                   m  **.
                   r~;  o
                      0

                   66
                     8 8
                     r- f^
                     oC —
                     ts 

                                  g _g
                                     £
 00 JJ

 s£

 5 =
 § 0
 U -n
 00 S

 2 o
 O rt


 -1
 o o
                                   .  >>
                                  M »


                                  "2
                                  I j| s
                                  III




                                  3 ^ J3
                                  — "c "«
                                  cs — o

                                  Sas
                         §(§  3
                         u *** *-
                                        O

                                        EH
                                                 H
                                  W


                                  EH

                                  CO
                                  H

                                  2 <
                                                    Q W
                                                 W
                                                          m
                                                           00
                                                          •o


                                                          1
                                                                   ob
                                                        §  6
                                                        cc Z
                                                                      f> in

                                                                      8 B

                                                                      ^^ ^>
                                                                      &> &i
                                              £
                                              S
                                                                      o o o o
T  t  t  t
o  o  o  o

 X  X  X  X
in  oo  ON  *J
(*}  f^  in  ^r

r-i  —  rn  ri
                                                       d d d d





                                                       I 8 8 8


                                                       •"" VO NO ^
                                                       oo t-~ NO r-
                                                                      ts m '
                                                                      in oo

                                                                      d d
                                                                               oo
                                                                               vo
                                                                         — (S m
                                                                         m o\ n
                                                                         o n o
                                                                            d
                                                                      o m
                                                                      ts oo
                                     8888
                                     r~    f*>
                                                                      OO  O  ON  ON
                                                                        «

                                                                    II
                                                                    o  **
             o  '




             §1
                                                                          2  o
                                                                          u  «
                                                                                   O  O

                                                                                   £  o
                                                                                   2:S

                                                                                   §  «
                                                  § t

                                                  ll

                                                 15
                                                 •3 o
                                                 ^s
                                                                                         00
                                                  u 3  3



                                                  I E°l


                                                 I'M  8
                                                 tu Q  %
                                                 9 *   ^
                                                 29

-------
2.80 kg/hr  (6.18 Ib/hr).  Hexavalent chromium emissions at
inlet A averaged 140 mg/dscm (0.061 gr/dscf),  or 2.99 kg/hr
(6.59 Ib/hr).   At the inlet B location, total chromium emissions
averaged 1.46 mg/dscm  (6.38 x 10"4 gr/dscf),  or 0.024 kg/hr
(0.053 Ib/hr).  Hexavalent chromium emissions at inlet B averaged
1.52 mg/dscm  (6.66 x 10"4 gr/dscf), or 0.025 kg/hr (0.056 Ib/hr).
The relatively high inlet loadings observed during this test are
more than likely attributable to the large tank capacities and
the large number of parts being plated during the test.
     Emissions measured at the outlet of the packed-bed
scrubber/mesh-pad mist eliminator system averaged 0.006 mg/dscm
(3.0 x 10"° gr/dscf) for both total and hexavalent chromium, or
2.5 x 10"4 kg/hr (5.5 x 10"4 Ib/hr) for total chromium and
2.4 x 10"4 kg/hr (5.4 x 10"4 Ib/hr) for hexavalent chromium.  The
removal efficiency of the control system averaged 99.99 percent.
The average total current applied to the six electroplating tanks
during outlet testing was 374,700 Ah.  Therefore, the process
emission rate, based on total and hexavalent chromium
measurements,  was 0.004 mg/Ah (6.2 x 10"5 gr/Ah).
     4.1.3.5  Discussion of Packed-Bed Scrubber/Mesh-Pad Mist
Eliminator Performance.  As discussed in Section 4.1.3.3,
recirculation sprays to the composite mesh pad were shut down
during testing to help increase the exhaust rate.  During
emissions testing and for a period of time following the tests,
only periodic washdown of the composite mesh pad was used.  A few
months after the unit was tested, an increase in pressure drop
was observed,  indicating that the composite mesh pad was plugged.
The pad had to be taken apart and cleaned, layer by layer.  Once
the unit was put back on line,  continuous irrigation of the
composite mesh pad was initiated, and no increases in pressure
drop have been observed in the months since.  Apparently, the
high-pressure periodic spray was not able to penetrate to the
finer layers in the center of the pad.  Continuous irrigation
with the low-pressure wash appears to prevent the buildup of
                                30

-------
chromium within these finer layers, thus eliminating the plugging
problem.
     As shown on Tables 8a and 8b, total and hexavalent chromium
emissions were lower at Inlet B, which services four tanks, than
they were at Inlet A, which services two tanks.  This can be
explained by the fact that the four tanks vented by Inlet B are
all circular tanks with depths ranging from 6 to 18 m (20 to
60 ft).  Inlet A vents two rectangular, horizontal tanks, each
approximately 2 m  (7 ft) deep.  More chromium will be emitted
when a part is electroplated in a shallow horizontal tank than
when that part is electroplated in a deep vertical tank.  In a
shallow tank, the hydrogen gas is evolved closer to the surface
of the plating solution and the agitation effect is much greater
than with the hydrogen gas generated in a deeper tank.
4.1.4  Discussion of Composite Mesh Pad Performance.
     Table 9 presents the performance data for the composite mesh
pad systems tested at Precision Engineering, Monroe Auto
Equipment,  and Remco Hydraulics, Inc.  A graphical illustration
of the outlet concentrations for each plant is shown in Figure 3.
The data from Monroe differentiate the tests done with a foam
blanket present in the plating bath from the tests done without a
foam blanket in the bath.  The mesh-pad units at Monroe and
Precision are identical in design with the exception of an
improvement in the seal system around the pads in the unit at
Monroe.  These mesh-pad units consist of a series of three mesh
pads with the composite pad as the second pad in the control
system.  The air pollution control unit tested at Remco consisted
of a packed-bed scrubber followed by two mesh pads, with the
composite mesh pad positioned first.
     The extremely high inlet concentrations measured at Remco
resulted in a very high percent reduction for the unit compared
to the percent reductions observed at Monroe and Precision.  The
inlet loading at Precision was lower than the other units tested
because a moisture extractor was located prior to the inlet test
location.   Test data from another hard chromium plating facility
                                31

-------



Cfl
rV
^•M
O
g
g
hH
2
H
J
W
EH
W
(__j
2
§
ft
ffi
00
u
2
W
EH
02
O
ft
2
O
U

cd
o
fa

<:
EH
<
Q
w
u
1
0
pr<
OJ
w
ft

.
ON
w
J
9
EH






£o~
m'H
U ^
" d
0) "
*"§
UJ
^

<*>
w



Current
loading,
Ah

Outlet
process
emission



•»
c
o •
g-H g
3 -U U
•H (TJ CO
g ^ T3
O 4J ^
W C G
-C 0) g
u u
c
o
u



















s
1
oT
jj
m
n

4J




o
o
<^>
m
H

ON
r-
o
o


H
H
O
.
O






H
in
a\
o




4J

ro
o


4J
CD
Jd
c
/w
fo
iH
A
frt

0
2

ON
(Ti
ON
ON


o
o
00
<*
r-
m

^
o
o
o


u>
o
o
,
o






CN
m
c*-













0
u
g

-------
       OUTLET CONCENTRATION, MG/DSCM
U.UJ
OAOC
.uZO
.02
Ort* C
.015
,0)
.005
n



1 1
1
|_ )



	 1 	
' 1
1
i i
         MONROE-W/O FB   MONROE-W/FB      PRECISION

                             PLANT NAME
REMCO
Figure 3.   Outlet chromium concentration  data for composite
            mesh-pad mist  eliminator systems.
                              33

-------
indicate that moisture extractors are capable of removing
approximately 85 percent of the chromium mist entering the
device.11  The test data presented in Table 9 suggest that the
higher the inlet concentration, the greater the percent reduction
attainable and the lower the process emission rate.  On the other
hand, regardless of the variations in the inlet loadings, the
outlet concentration levels are relatively constant.  Figure 4
illustrates the lack of correlation between inlet loadings and
outlet concentration levels.  This suggests that outlet
concentration levels are a better measure of the performance of
the units than process emission rates or percent reductions.
     The relationship between inlet loading and percent reduction
is shown in Figures 5 and 6.  A regression analyses was performed
on the data from Monroe and Precision to determine if a linear-
relationship existed between inlet loadings and control
efficiencies.  The correlation coefficients for both inlet
concentration and inlet mass rate were very good:  r=0.82 and
r=0.85, respectively.  The data from Remco were not included
because of the excessively high inlet loadings.  The data in
Figures 4 and 5 suggest that at an inlet concentration of about
1.2 mg/dscm, or a mass emission rate of 0.05 kg/hr, the
dependency on inlet loadings no longer exists and the percent
reduction is at a relatively constant level regardless of the
inlet loading.  This phenomena is expected since 100 percent
control or greater can never be achieved regardless of the inlet
loading.  The high correlation coefficients further support the
assumption that inlet loadings have an effect on the performance
efficiencies of the control systems.  As shown in Figure 4,
outlet concentration levels are independent of inlet loadings,
and so can be used as reliable indicators of control device
performance.
     Process emission rates, mg/Ah, also are not valid measures
of control device performance.  Inlet loadings to the control
system are strongly dependent upon the amount of current applied
to the plating tank(s).  As discussed above, the outlet
                                34

-------
O    CO    ID
cn    oj    CM
o    o    a
CM
o
CM
CM
a
o
ro
o
CD
r~
D


O
LO
^~
O

o
                                                 o

                                                 o
C\J
T—
a


D
O
r~
O

o
CO    CD    T
o    o    a
o    a    a
                                                                                        LA
                                                                                        CM
                                                                                        CD
                                                                                        a
                                                                                        LA
                                                                                        CM
                                                                                        LA
                                                                                        LA
                                                                                        a
                                                                                        LA
                                                                                        in
                                                                                        CM
                                                                                        m
                                                                                        r^
                                                                                        01

                                                                                        a

                                                                                        CD
                                                                     LA
                                                                     cn
                                                                     LA

                                                                     a


                                                                     LA


                                                                     CD


                                                                     CM

                                                                     ^-

                                                                     a


                                                                     01


                                                                     ca
C\J
o
o
                                                                                                                    0)
                                                                                                                    rH
                                                                                                                    AJ


                                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                  0)
                                                                                                 rH

                                                                                                  C
                                                                                                 •H
                                                                                                  rt
                                                                                                  jj
                                                                                                  m
                                                                                                  -o

                                                                                                  S-i
                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                  4-J
                                                                                                  as
                                                                                                  C
                                                                                                  •H
                                                                                                  S
                                                                                                  r-l  X

                                                                                                  «  °


                                                                                                  ^^
                                                                                                  03  .*
                                                                                                                    T)
                                                                                                                    rt
                                                                                                                     CO
                                                                                                                     0)
                                                                                                                     g
                                                                                                                    .u
                                                                                                                    -H
                                                                                                                    CO
                                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                                    u
^<

0)
                    uosp/6uj   '
                                                                                                                     C71
                                                                                                                    •H
                                                      35

-------
                           O)
•/. -
                                     o
                                    •H
                                    4->
                                     (0
                                     )-l
                                    •P
                                     C
                                     0)
                                     o

                                     o
                                     o
                                     0)
                                    •H
                                     C
                                    -H


                                     (fl
                                     0)
                                     u

                                     a)
                                    •H
                                     o
                                    •H
                                     0)

                                     I

                                     fl

                                     fl
                                     -0
                                     C
                                    •H
                                     e
                                     a)

                                     4J
                                     u
                                     •H
-a
 (0
 a
 t
£
 (0
 QJ
 E

 0)
.p
•H
 U
 o
 a
 E
 O
 U
                                     in

                                     0)
                     \
                    -^:
       in


       +

       2
       "si


       £
       u
                                                                                    s
                                                                                  ^ o
                                                           in


                                                        %
                                             u
                                             •o
                                             £
5   8
$
S;
                     If
                                                                                          5
                     .p
                     d



                     §
                                                                   0)
                                                                   *j
                                                                   n)
                                                                   id
                                                                   0)
                                                                   (H
                                                                   C
                                                                   (0
                                                                   3
                                                                                                        QJ
                                                                   U
                                                                   C
                                                                   0)
                                                                   •H
                                                                   o
                                  0)

                                   I

                                  fl

                                  fl
                                  T3
                                                                   O
                                                                   •P
                                                                   (0
                                                                   C
                                                                   •H
                                                                   E
                                                                    0)


                                                                   -P
                                                                    Ul
                                                                                                        fl
                                                                                                        a
                                                                                                        i
                                                                                                        .C
                                                                                                        to
                                                                                                        (U
                                                                                                        E

                                                                                                        0)
                                                                                                        .p
                                                                                                        •H
                                                                                                        U]
                                                                                                        o
                                                                                                        a

                                                                                                        o
                                                                                                        u
                                                                   VO


                                                                    0)
                                                                    i-l
                                                                    3
                                     •H

                                     &H
                                           36

-------
concentration levels are independent of the inlet loading.
Therefore, it follows that the outlet concentrations are not
dependent upon the current applied to the plating tank(s).
Constant outlet concentrations result in high process emission
rates for operations with low current loadings and low process
emission rates for operations with high current loadings.  For
example, as shown in Table 9, Remco had the highest current
loading of the units tested  (374,800 Ah).  This high current
loading produced the lowest process emission rate (0.004 mg/Ah).
Monroe  (with no foam blanket) had the lowest current loading
(13,600 Ah) and the highest process emission rate (0.079 mg/Ah).
However, the outlet concentration levels for both the Remco and
Monroe units were relatively constant (0.006 and 0.011 mg/dscm,
respectively).  Thus, process emission rates are not reliable
indicators of control device performance.
     The data presented in Figure 3 and Table 9 might suggest
that the unit at Remco represents a higher level of control than
the units at Monroe and Precision.  The finest material layers in
the composite mesh pad at Remco were woven with a smaller
diameter fiber than the material used in the composite pads in
the Precision and Monroe units.  The difference in the fiber
diameters could have contributed to the difference in the
performance levels.  However, as noted in Section 4.1.3.5, the
unit at Remco developed a plugging problem after a few months of
use.  Even though the problem has been corrected, and the unit
has been operating without any increase in pressure drop, some
concern still exists regarding the long term maintenance
requirements for this unit.  In addition, the outlet emission
levels are very low for all the units, and some data overlap
exists between the outlet concentration levels measured at Remco
and those measured at Monroe when a foam blanket was present in
the plating bath.  Therefore, the data from all three composite
mesh-pad systems tested were determined to represent one control
level.
                                37

-------
     Based on the outlet chromium concentration ranges for each
composite mesh-pad system tested, as shown in Figure 3, it
appears that composite mesh-pad systems can achieve outlet
chromium concentrations of less than 0.015 mg/dscm
(6.6 x 10"6 gr/dscf).   The outlet concentrations for these
systems ranged from 0.003 to 0.013 mg/dscm (1.3 x 10"6 to
5.7 x 10"6 gr/dscf) with an overall average of 0.009 mg/dscm
(3.9 x 10"6 gr/dscf).
4.2  Fiber-Bed Mist Eliminator Tests--Naval Aviation Depot.
     Alameda. California12
     The Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity  (NEESA)
conducted chromium emission tests on three fiber-bed mist
eliminator systems used to control chromium emissions from
plating and chromic acid anodizing operations at Building 32,
Naval Aviation Depot,  Alameda, California.  The tests were
performed on April 15 - 18, 1991.  The medium-size plating shop
performs hard chromium electroplating of marine hardware and
chromic acid anodizing of naval aircraft parts.
4.2.1  Process Description.13
     There are seven hard chromium plating tanks and two chromic
acid anodizing tanks at this facility.  Table 10 presents the
dimensions and capacities for each process tank.  The hard
chromium plating solution in each plating tank consists of
chromic acid at a concentration of 240 g/L (32 oz/gal) and
sulfuric acid, a catalyst, at a concentration of 2.4 g/L
(0.32 oz/gal).  The normal operating temperature of the plating
baths is 60°C  (140°F).  Tanks 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are each equipped
with a 2,500-A rectifier.  Tanks 2 and 3 are each equipped with a
5,000-A rectifier.
     The chromic acid anodizing solution in each anodizing tank
consists of chromic acid at a concentration of 67 g/L  (9 oz/gal).
The normal operating temperature of these baths is 60°C  (140°F).
The anodizing tanks (8 and 9) are equipped with a 2,000-A and a
1,500-A rectifier, respectively.
                                38

-------
  TABLE 10.   CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING AND CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING
        TANK SPECIFICATIONS AT THE NAVAL AVIATION DEPOT,
                       ALAMEDA,  CALIFORNIA
Type/
Tank No.
Dimensions,
(l,w,d) , m (ft)
Capacity,
L (gal)a
Hard chromium plating
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Chromic acid
8

9

2.
(8.
2.
(8.
4.
(14
1.
(6.
1.
(6.
1.
(6.
1.
(6.
anodizincr
4.
(16
2.
(8.
4,
0,
4,
0,
3,
• 0,
8,
0,
8,
0,
8,
0,
8,
0,
9,
-0,
4,
0,
1.
4.
1.
4.
1.
4
0.
2.
0.
2.
0.
2.
0.
2.
1.
4
1.
4.
2,
0,
2,
0,
2,
-0,
9,
8,
9,
8,
9,
8,
9,
8,
2,
.0,
2,
0,
1.
6.
1.
6.
1.
6
1.
6.
1.
6.
1.
6.
1.
6.
1.
5
1.
5.
8
0)
8
0)
8
.0)
8
0)
8
0)
8
0)
8
0)
5
.0)
5
0)
5,000
(1,320)
5,000
(1,320)
8,720
(2,300)
2,620
(690)
2,620
(690)
2,620
(690)
2,620
(690)
8,140
(2,150)
4,090
(1,080)
Assumes  a free board space of 15 cm (6 in.)
                               39

-------
     All of the plating and anodizing tanks are equipped with
heating and cooling systems to maintain uniform solution
temperatures.  Overhead hoists are used to transport parts in and
out of the plating and anodizing tanks.
4.2.2  Air Pollution Control.12'14
     Each of the plating and anodizing tanks is equipped with
double-sided draft hoods.  Three identical control systems are
used to control chromium emissions from the plating and anodizing
tanks.  Each control system consists of a vertical-flow, single
packed-bed scrubber unit with chevron-blade mist eliminators
preceding and following the scrubber.  The packed-bed scrubber
units were installed by Viron International Corporation* in 1990.
Following treatment in these units, the gas streams are ducted to
fiber-bed mist eliminators.  Figure 7 presents a schematic of a
typical fiber-bed mist eliminator.
     Three of the hard chromium plating tanks  (I through 3) are
commonly ducted to one control system.  The remaining four
plating tanks (4 through 7) are commonly ducted to a second
control system,  and the two anodizing tanks (8 and 9) are
commonly ducted to a third control system.  For purposes of
discussion, the control systems will be designated as Line G
(anodizing tanks), Line L  (three plating tanks), and Line M (four
plating tanks).   The ventilation rates for Lines G, L, and M are
680 actual m3/min  (24,000 actual ft3/min), 700 actual m3/min
(24,800 actual ft3/min), and 400 actual m3/min
(14,300 actual ft3/min), respectively.
     The fiber-bed mist eliminators, manufactured by CECO
Filters, Inc.* and installed in 1990, are located on the roof of
the plating shop.  Booster fans are used following each packed-
bed scrubber to aid in maintaining the appropriate gas flow rate
     *Mention of trade names or commercial products is not
     intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for
     use.
                                40

-------
                                        Ill Gas
                                        E$$?$] Liquid
                                        I   I Coarse Fiber Drainage Layer
                                            Fine Fiber Collection Layer
Figure 7.   Schematic of a typical  fiber-bed mist eliminator,
                                  41

-------
to the fiber-bed mist eliminators.  The fiber-bed units are
designed for horizontal, concurrent gas flow through the beds.
Inertial impaction and Brownian diffusion are the principal
mechanisms used to remove the small chromic acid mist droplets
that escape the packed-bed scrubber.  The design gas flow rate of
the fiber-bed unit for line G is 680 m3/min (24,000 ft3/min).
For lines L and M, the fiber bed design gas flow rates are 700
m3/min (24,800 ft3/min) and 400 m3/min (14,300 ft3/min),
respectively.  The design pressure drop across the beds in each
unit is 1.7 kPa (7 in. w.c.).  The fiber-bed units on lines G and
L are designed for a cross-sectional velocity of 6.1 m/min  (20
ft/min) and the unit on line M is designed for 7.0 m/min
(23 ft/min).
     The fiber-bed units have a special patented nested filter
design.  Each fiber-bed unit contains between four and six
cylindrical metal cages, and each cage consists of two
cylindrical filter elements.  Within each metal cage, one filter
element fits inside the other element.  The outer element has an
outside diameter of 81 cm (32 in.), an inside diameter of 71 cm
(28 in.), and a radial thickness of 5.1 cm (2 in.).  The inner
element has an outside diameter of 56 cm (22 in.), an inside
diameter of 46 cm (18 in.),  and a radial thickness of 5.1 cm
(2 in.).   Due to the difference between the inside diameter of
the outer element and the outside diameter of the inner element,
there is a 7.6 cm (3 in.) space between the two filters.  Both of
the filter elements in each cage are 3.7m (12 ft) high.  The
individual fibers that comprise the filter elements are glass.
     There are six cylindrical cages or 12 filter elements  in the
units controlling lines G and L, and four cages or 8 filter
elements in the unit on line M.
     Each fiber-bed mist eliminator is equipped with spray
nozzles at the bottom of the unit to allow for periodic cleaning
of the filter media, which helps to prevent plugging of the unit.
The nozzles are operated for approximately 5 minutes every
4 hours.   Water is sprayed at a rate of about 9.5 L/hr
                                42

-------
 (2.5 gal/hr) for the larger units on lines G and L, and at a rate
of about 4.7 L/hr  (1.3 gal/hr) for the smaller unit on line M.
4.2.3  Process Conditions During Testing.12
     4.2.3.1  Exhaust Line G.  Four four-hour chromium emissions
test runs were performed at the outlet of the control unit on
exhaust line G, which ventilates two chromic acid anodizing
tanks.  During the testing period, one of the tanks contained
four aluminum sheets, each with a surface area of 3.4 m2
 (36.5 ft2).  The other tank contained one aluminum sheet with a
surface area of 3.4 m2 (36.5 ft2) and a row of (unspecified)
parts.  Average total current applied to the two anodizing tanks
during testing ranged from 4,000 to 5,100 Ah.
     4.2.3.2  Exhaust Line L.  Two three-hour and one four-hour
emission test runs were conducted at the outlet of the control
unit on line L, which ventilates three hard chromium plating
tanks.  During the tests, each of the tanks contained four parts
to be electroplated, and each part had a surface area of 0.7 m2
 (7.6 ft2).  Average total current applied to the three tanks
during testing ranged from 29,400 to 42,600 Ah.
     4.2.3.3  Exhaust Line M.  Line M pulls air from four hard
chromium plating tanks.  One eight-hour emission test run was
performed at the outlet of the fiber-bed mist eliminator
controlling the line.  In addition, two four-hour emission test
runs were performed simultaneously at the inlet and outlet of the
fiber-bed mist eliminator.  During the tests, each tank contained
four small parts, each with a surface area of 0.1 m2 (1.5 ft2).
Current applied to the four tanks during inlet testing ranged
from 37,400 to 37,600 Ah.  The current ranged from 37,400 to
37,600 Ah for the outlet test runs that were conducted in
conjunction with the inlet runs.  The current applied to the tank
during the eight-hour run at the outlet was 75,100 Ah.
4.2.4  Results of Emissions Testing.12
     Table 11 presents the performance data for each of the
fiber-bed mist eliminator scrubber systems tested at the Naval
Aviation Depot.  Emissions measured at the outlet of the fiber-
                                43

-------





C/3

UJ
fe
>
C/5
LIMINATOF
IA.a
^Z
oo o
2a
Q <
g^
(i <
UJ d
ffi UJ
E 5
"" — ^P
* j
UJ J
S <
CO -
go
Ugj
^Q
UJ
UJ Z
DC C
^?
^
ot. -r
O>
V-.
U. <
< d
E- <
< ^
D<
m *-
U UJ
^^
^< *•
S E-
tf <
0
U.
Oi
UJ
c.
a
CO
<





i 0
sr
b? -s
^ 0







urn emissions
E
.c
o
"«
£
jo
O






•C /"*v
<^
^>2
E ~


^•r
"oo O
_* ^,
E
i^
5 d
!=•

«<
v:
« *J"
1 §
^3
O









^
vi
o
|s
u
E
2

|
u
T5
2
5
c




JS ^
<°7'
"ix O
60 ~
E ^


*»n«n f^.»mO ^mvc
OOOOO OC"" *"* 2 2 v
o o o o o OQOO Q o o o
d d d d d d e- d d w d d d
VVVVV VVV VVV

r^voto^in r^^r^O1- oo»s^o
oooooO!^ (sr~o\Ov \r> — O\ "~O-"
d o" d d d d o' d d d d d d

g g § § S 1111 Illl
tn" en" m' »/•>" t" oC o" ri fT irT r-" r~" o"
.•. ^ f-si fsj ^ fn ^ r^- en m m

U U u
.£ .S .E
-) -J J
"« VI *ffi
3 33
RS « «
- S "S
U UJ UJ

Q r— 't1
5 vO O
^ m m



rf — fn
— m r~
• > >
— ts m ^t •< — fs en •< — c-» en •<
1 i
s 1
j SL
S3 S
U) <£•
- g
• * K
1 1
1 I g
oo -o C
f 1 1
§ 1 I
"O „) in
•i | |
.a * S
3 VI ' —
Ee"
2 E £
J3 „ 
0 | «
'« u g
.2 o °
C/5 *" ™
S s -°
g « -2
•1 s «
j? ;= So
u i. g
u £ S
u «
3 i 1
0 -0
g o i
- 8 c
w . c S
3 in .= JS
« -S — ^b
•*- S *• .£:
x 3 ,p c-
o "*•
&fl r*l VI
e 2P ,2 u
.2 -I 'S «
"3 -2 = "~
— Q. » W C
•i °*^ o o
8 i 1 1 1
- 1 8 1 !
v> O t> •.= w
"o j= •£ ** «
- ° c " e
§ -2 § 'i |
" « 73 _ g
E 1 U e
s E i •? *
S. 2 £ S •§
^a S.^3
Uhl
0 .= * 73 5
«'*!«
lPl|
§ -5 o E ^
fll K M *•• Jo
0 0 ^ 0 .2
JS _ •= «• 0
O •" *^ -^^ t^
a o o -a a:
UJ 2 Z .g tu
S .B O
44

-------
bed mist eliminator system controlling exhaust line G averaged
9.5 x 10~5 mg/dscm  (4.2 x 10~8 gr/dscf),  or <0.5 x 10"5 kg/hr
(
-------
     OUTLET CONCENTRATION, MG/DSCM (1E-04)
            LINEM
LINEL
LINEG
Figure 8.   Fiber-bed mist  eliminator outlet  concentrations,
                              46

-------
mist eliminators tested.  The concentration range shown in
Figure 8 for Exhaust Lines L and M are much wider than those
shown for Exhaust Line G.  A review of the individual test runs
for Lines L and M shows that in each case, the results for one
test run were much higher than those for the other two test runs.
No explanations for these high values were given in the test
report, nor was any process condition identified that might
account for these results.  It is suspected that these high
values may have resulted from sampling errors  (e.g., probe
contact with the duct wall during sampling or cross contamination
during recovery of the sample).  Because of the relatively small
amounts of chromium present in the outlet stack gas, even minor
errors made during sampling or recovery can invalidate the entire
test run.  Therefore, the abnormally high results obtained in the
test runs from Lines L and M were disregarded.  When these high
test run results are eliminated, the test data from the remaining
runs for all lines show a high level of consistency in the
performance of the units across a fairly wide range of inlet
loadings.
     Figure 9 presents the results of the outlet test runs
(excluding the high test run values discussed above) for each
fiber-bed mist eliminator tested.  The consistency in the data
for these runs was expected because the filter system in the
fiber-bed mist eliminators is similar in operation to other
impaction-type constant outlet control systems that were tested
previously.  The emission test results suggest fiber-bed mist
eliminators are capable of achieving outlet concentrations of
1 x 10"4 mg/dscm (4.4 x 10"® gr/dscf)  with corresponding removal
efficiencies greater than 99.9 percent.
     An important factor to consider in the evaluation of fiber-
bed mist eliminators is the tendency of the units to plug.  At
the facility tested, no operational problems with the fiber-bed
mist eliminators were identified.  As stated previously, the
fiber-bed mist eliminators at this facility are located
                                47

-------
     OUTLET CONCENTRATION, MG/DSCM (1E-4)
    4
    3 -
                                I
            LINEM              LINEL              LINE G
Figure 9.   Fiber-bed mist eliminator outlet concentrations
            without high test values.
                             48

-------
downstream of packed-bed scrubbers.  These packed-bed scrubbers
significantly reduce the inlet loading to the fiber beds, which
decreases the tendency of the units to plug.  Most vendors do not
recommend fiber-bed mist eliminators as the first stage of the
control system because of their tendency to plug.  It is
recommended that a coarse filtering device be installed upstream
of the units to prevent plugging and operational problems that
may arise as a result of plugging of the filter media.
4.3  Summary of Emission Test Results
     The outlet chromium emission concentrations for all of the
mist eliminators tested, as well as the average outlet chromium
concentrations achieved by typical packed-bed scrubbers, are
presented in Figure 10.  The composite mesh-pad systems tested
achieved average outlet concentrations of 0.009 mg/dscm
(0.004 x 10~3 gr/dscf).  Fiber-bed mist eliminators are capable
of achieving outlet concentrations of 0.0001 mg/dscm  (0.004 x 10"
5 gr/dscf).  The average outlet chromium concentration for
traditional packed-bed scrubbers is 0.024 mg/dscm
(0.010 x 10~3 gr/dscf).5  The better performance of the mist
eliminators is attributable to the higher surface area-to-volume
ratios of the mesh pads and fiber beds compared to those of the
scrubber packing materials.  For mesh pads, the surface area-to-
volume ratio ranges from 100 to 2,620 m2/m3 (31 to
800 ft2/ft3).2  Fiber beds have a typical surface area-to-volume
ratio of 35,380 m2/m3 (10,800 ft2/ft3).3  The surface area-to-
volume ratios for scrubber packing ranges from 98 to
140 m2/m3 (30 to 45 ft2/ft3).15
     As shown in Figure 10, the performance of fiber-bed mist
eliminators is significantly better than the performance of
composite mesh-pad systems.  The higher performance of fiber-bed
mist eliminators is also attributable to the higher surface area-
to-volume ratios.  As shown above, the ratios for fiber beds are
14 to 350 times higher than those for mesh pads.  However, fiber-
bed mist eliminators have more stringent maintenance requirements
                                49

-------
    0.03


   0.025


    0.02


   0.015


    0.01


   0.005
         OUTLET CONCENTRATION, MG/DSCM
I
A - TRADITIONAL SCRUBBERS
B - COMPOSITE MESH PAD - MONROE W/O FOAM BLANKET
C - COMPOSITE MESH PAD - MONROE W/FOAM BLANKET
D - COMPOSFTE MESH PAD - PRECISION ENGINEERING
E - COMPOSITE MESH PAD • REMCO HYDRAULICS
FM - FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATOR - ALAMEDM.INE M
FL » FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATOR - ALAMEDA/LINE L
FG * FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATOR - ALAMEDA/LINE G
        H1
           I
                                                      -©-
                     B
                          D        E
                         PLANT CODE
                   FM
FL
FG
Figure  10.    Performance data for  mist  eliminator  systems,
                                      50

-------
than composite mesh-pad systems and are recommended for use only
as a "polishing", or final stage control device.  A coarse
control system  (e.g., packed-bed scrubber, chevron-blade mist
eliminator) should be located upstream of the fiber-bed mist
eliminator to reduce the loading and prevent the unit from
plugging.  Composite mesh-pad systems can be used without any
other control system to control emissions of chromic acid mist,
as these systems incorporate staged particle removal within the
unit to prevent plugging of the pads.
5.0  ENVIRONMENTAL AND COST IMPACTS
     This section presents the environmental and cost impacts
associated with the use of mesh-pad mist eliminators, packed-bed
scrubber/mesh-pad mist eliminator systems, and fiber-bed mist
eliminators in hard chromium electroplating operations.  The
impacts are presented on a model plant basis.  Air pollution,
energy,  water pollution, and solid waste impacts associated with
the use of these technologies for reducing hexavalent chromium
emissions from electroplating operations are discussed in this
section.  Capital and annualized cost impacts attributable to the
operation of these technologies, and a summary of economic
impacts are also presented.  Impacts relating to the use of
mesh-pad mist eliminators, packed-bed scrubber/mesh-pad mist
eliminator systems, and fiber-bed mist eliminators are based on
the hard chromium plating model plant parameters in Table 12.
5.1  Air Pollution Impacts
     The level of emissions control assigned to each of the new
control technologies for hard chromium plating operations is
based on the percent reduction achievable by well-maintained
units at average inlet loadings.  The achievable reductions have
been determined by the emissions tests described in Section 4.
While these tests show that higher emissions reductions are
attainable, a performance level of 99.8 percent has been assigned
to each of the new control technologies for hard chromium plating
to account for the variability in inlet loadings.   (Units with
                                51

-------
CO

2j
3
dl

J
w
D
Q
S
O
s
H
P-H
1
Ol
o
0!
H
U
W
J
KI
H
s
O
rv*
PH
ffi
U
Q


W
ffi
CH
L
&
O
fa
CO
rv*
MH
W
r .
ir1
W
2
O<

CM
H
W
J
1
t"1












a
VTs
(* J
i
SI

















V
8?
J2







E
1






T3
V)








_o
&
o
4)
"§

O 00 00
"1 0 ~ 0 ~ 0
fs o cs *c > o\ \d
*L ~ - ~ O* ° o"
2 (s 9 \o •* vo en
^ k « ^ rf^ * r*^ >.
2 * - o o
8 o ©9®^®^
\OOO — OOfS^^-^fSv-S-



oo

o ~ o S
o c i CN \c oo vd
<•>"".- o" - o
^ (N 9 vc •* ON' r^
O "~ ~ "T. ^ o" ® O"
^ o « « ° ® d * a
f^l f*«- ^f ^f ^™ -^^^ fSj s^^ f1^ -^^



y^*.
o
oo vd
VD ~" 10*
0 -' ^
§>< ~ 9'
, o 9 « N
» ^
tA ^" "^3
s.1 & *
s.f|g |!
S "S 8. •? 1 .2
E « £ 3 55
~ § -p $ •*• §
£ - .1 1 u ° J
'5 g 8? * ^ JJ '
ll«l« II

X-. O~
^s g 1/1
I | =" ^
(S ^ ^ IT)
r'o - ^
t"- t*- CO ^-^
»/v _•• l^s 	
V^ ^- W J Q
® @© 8
^
•~ © - o
r~ fi n TJ-




8
>o
o o1
ON O
fS m




E
1
S.
.C
Q
•c" c
i J
** rt
L| |
^ e ^
S% 3
•2.| £
= -? §
c^- 8
„ 6 £







§








0
m






O
00
O^
"•




V
JO
'S
^ 1
^ .2
I 1
<- 
-------
high inlet loadings will achieve greater emissions reductions
than units with low inlet loadings).
     Table 13 shows the hexavalent  chromium emissions associated
with uncontrolled hard chromium electroplating model plants and
emissions from the same model plants controlled with traditional
packed-bed scrubbers or one of the  new emission control
technologies described in this document for hard chromium plating
operations.  As shown in Table 13,  when mesh-pad mist eliminators
with mesh pads in series, packed-bed scrubber/mesh-pad mist
eliminator systems, or fiber-bed mist eliminators are used,
emissions from the model plants are reduced by 80 percent over
the reduction achieved with the use of typical packed-bed
scrubbers with control levels of 99 percent.
5.2  Energy Impacts
     The energy impacts associated  with the operation of mist
eliminators and scrubbers result from an increase in the fan
horsepower necessary to overcome the pressure drop across the
control devices and to operate the  recirculation pumps on the
packed-bed scrubbers and some mesh-pad mist eliminators.  The
basic capture system is considered  to be part of the baseline
operation.  These capture systems are used to comply with health
and safety regulations.  The fan horsepower requirements for the
basic capture system for hard chromium electroplating model
plants are presented in Table 14.   This table also presents the
increases in electrical use (over the basic capture system alone)
attributable to the use of packed-bed scrubbers, mist eliminators
with mesh pads in series, packed-bed scrubber/mesh-pad mist
eliminator systems, and fiber-bed mist eliminators.
     The energy requirements to operate one of the new control
technologies are equal to the electrical use for the basic
capture system plus the increase in electrical use over the basic
capture system for the control device.  A mist eliminator with
mesh pads in series has total energy requirements ranging from
                                53

-------
TABLE 13.   HEXAVALENT  CHROMIUM EMISSION ESTIMATES ASSOCIATED WITH
     THE USE  OF PACKED-BED  SCRUBBERS AND NEW  EMISSION CONTROL
     TECHNOLOGIES  AT HARD CHROMIUM  ELECTROPLATING MODEL  PLANTS


Uncontrolled
Single packed-bed scrubber*
Mist eliminator with mesh pads in series
Packed-bed scrubber/mesh-pad mist
eliminator system
Fiber-bed mist eliminator
Emission
Small
50(110)
0.5(1.1)
0. 10 (0.22)
0.10(0.22)
0.10(0.22)
estimates, kg/yr (Ib/yr)
Medium
420 (926)
4.2 (9.3)
0.84(1.85)
0.84 (1.85)
0.84(1.85)

Large
1,600(3,530)
16 (35.3)
3.20 (7.06)
3.20 (7.06)
3.20 (7.06)
 aSingle packed-bed scrubber that reduces uncontrolled emissions by 99 percent.
 "New control technology that reduces uncontrolled emissions by 99.8 percent.
                                     54

-------

Q
W
CQ
I
Q
W
u p
< H
f\j S
o
tti Ct^
O EC
U
m
CO Q
K
EH EH
rtj
O
EH CO
W
W H
J O
|||

IIs
CO § §
EH EH 2
Hi
w £
W CO
DS H
S
>H W
W W
& &
W
<1
Z CO
z ct;
TABLE 14. A
SCRUBBE
u
J





E
3

'"8



^2
g
1/1






















o S S ^ oo o
ri g 2- ©
^3
5 ^




Q ff § - § §
S *T
»
^1
n




2 —
*
55}" w" 2
^^


§£ o -22
f> S o
_r rf
cs
'*-'














'e
'c
_e
^
E a.
« S, * -
eg -t s sf
« c 43 § Sa-
gg « | S 's f. '
1 1 1 g | 1 a
Si % 1 £ i I •
c > "3 S 5 -o <2 .
•~ -a S « -f •> -a
p lillli



«? ""
?
*



















8
i— !>
blectncal use, KWh/yi
Control Device
Packed-bed scrubber
Number of control de'
                                8888
                                              o
                                              o
— OOOOOm
   O

   *
- 8  8  S  8
                       8
                                ir>  \n  in
                                cs  n  —
                       «_

                                       5 •*
 55

-------









0)
3
C
-H
4J
C
0
u


•
^j*
w
J
§
t~*













§>
J3

E
3
'S
"(3
E
on



























S S cs ^ — m 8
® ® |
,
O. ^
0 §
S -^
E «
« J

tS
(A
h*
o

_c
—
—
VI

1
I
j;

"*>-
Packed-bed scrubbei
>^ «
B 1
a w
piT ^~»
A
0 £
.ii 3
SS o. Q.
-S •= S
s s .«
> ^ S5
*- o "°
S S o. 1 1

| o. -| * gj 1 o
^ * •• S & fe T3 C
"" "" *" "" *£
fS «O O O C
(S >n r~ O
© s
(N •*•
- ^ ^ ^ 0
— 01 °* y
«
-55R8
8O
?





0.

S *""
^^^ ^
4) ^
li

1 i
Jj w
w «*

i*1 o
cS ^-
-o S
S Si
> «
o «
•— -°
u u
0 P 0
o .S u
•J n. a "
» •*= 8
•o - £ -a
Number of control
Individual fan sizes
Total fan size, hp
Increase in energy
Increase in electric!






















•
^™

^
8
~~
s
c
cd
C
u
~

"2
•o
aNumbers were roun
56

-------
37.3 MWh/yr for the small model plant to 895 MWh/yr for the large
model plant.  This range represents an increase of approximately
150 percent over the uncontrolled level and approximately 52 to
59 percent over the energy required to operate a typical packed-
bed scrubber.
     The total energy required to operate a packed-bed
scrubber/mesh-pad mist eliminator system ranges from 49.2 MWh/yr
for the small model plant to 962 MWh/yr for the large model
plant.  This is an increase of approximately 170 to 230 percent
compared to the uncontrolled level and approximately 71 to
100 percent compared to using a typical packed-bed scrubber.
     For fiber-bed mist eliminators, the total energy
requirements range from 59.7 MWh/yr for the small hard chromium
plating model plant to 1,120 MWh/yr for the large model plant.
This is an increase of approximately 210 to 300 percent over the
uncontrolled (basic capture system alone) level and approximately
98 to 140 percent over the energy requirements for operating a
typical packed-bed scrubber.
5.3  Wastewater Impacts
     Use of each of the three new emission control technologies
for hard chromium plating operations results in the generation of
wastewater that requires reuse, treatment, or disposal.  However,
based on available information, it is assumed that all wastewater
generated by the control devices can be drained to the plating
tanks to make up for evaporation losses, as is typically the
practice with other control technologies currently used in the
industry.
5.4  Solid Waste Impacts
     One potential source of solid waste from hard chromium
plating operations is the sludge produced by wastewater treatment
operations.  As noted in the previous section, wastewater
generated by the three new control technologies for hard chromium
plating is assumed to be recirculated and reused in the process.
This recirculation minimizes the wastewater treatment throughput,
                                57

-------
and therefore, the quantities of sludge generated are not
significant.
     The use of mist eliminators and packed-bed scrubbers results
in some solid waste impacts because of the need to replace mesh
pads, scrubber-bed packing, and fiber-bed material.  Estimates:
for replacement frequency of scrubber-packing material,  mesh
pads, and fiber-bed material are shown in Table 15 along with the
volumes of solid waste attributable to the use of these
materials.
     Annual solid waste generation attributable to the use of
mist eliminators with mesh pads in series ranges from 0.19 m3/yr
(6.7 ft3/yr) for the small model plant to 1.0 m3/yr  (35 ft3/yr)
for the large model plant, an increase of about 140 to 150
percent over the solid waste attributable to the use of single
packed-bed scrubbers.
     The use of packed-bed scrubber/mesh-pad mist eliminator
systems results in the generation of solid waste attributable to
bed packing as well as mesh pad materials.  In this case, annual
solid waste volumes for the model plants would range from
0.45 m3/yr  (16 ft3/yr) to 2.6 m3/yr (92 ft3/yr), representing an
increase of 460 to 520 percent compared to the waste generated
when using single packed-bed scrubbers alone.
     The quantities of solid waste generated annually as a result
of using a fiber-bed mist eliminator range from 0.42 m3/yr
(15 ft3/yr) for the small model plant to 2.6 m3/yr  (92 ft3/yr)
for the large model plant.  This represents an increase of 420 to
520 percent over the solid waste generated by model plants using
single packed-bed scrubbers.
     As discussed below under cost impacts, disposal practices
associated with these solid wastes often include the compaction
of the materials for packing and shipping purposes.  For purposes
of cost impact calculations, a compaction factor of 50 percent
was assumed for bed packing and mesh-pad material.  Therefore,
from a practical standpoint, the solid waste volumes discussed
above may be halved.
                                58

-------
TABLE 15.   SOLID WASTE IMPACTS  ASSOCIATED WITH THE  USE OF PACKED-
       BED SCRUBBERS  AND  NEW EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
           AT HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING  MODEL PLANTS
Hard chromium plating model plants

Single packed-bed scrubbers
Total volume of packing material, m (ft3)
Frequency of replacement, yr
Annualized volume, m3/yr (ft3/yr)
Mist eliminators with mesh pads in series
Total volume of mesh pad material, m3 (fir)
Frequency of replacement, yr
Annualized volume, m /yr (ft /yr)
Packed-bed scrubbers/mesh-pad mist eliminator systems
Total volume of packing material, m3 (ft )a
Total volume of mesh pad material, m (ft )
Frequency of replacement of packing material, yr
Frequency of replacement of mesh pads, yr
Annualized total volume of material, m /yr (fr/yr)
Fiber-bed mist eliminators
Total volume of packing material, m3 (ft3)
Frequency of replacement, yr
Annualized volume, m /yr (fr/yr)
Small

0.82 (29)
10
0.08 (2.8)
0.95 (34)
5
0.19(6.7)
2.3 (81)
1.1(39)
10
5
0.45 (16)

2.1(74)
5
0.42 (15)
Medium

2.1(74)
10
0.21 (7.4)
2.6 (92)
5
0.52 (18)
6.7 (237)
3.3(117)
10
5
1.3(46)

6.4 (226)
5
1.3 (46)
Large

4.2(148)
10
0.42 (15)
5.2 (184)
5
1.0 (35)
13 (459)
6.7 (237)
10
5
2.6 (92)

13 (459)
5
2.6 (92)
 aBased on a packing-bed depth of 0.9 m (3 ft)
                                 59

-------
     Another source of solid waste is the retrofitting or
replacement of control devices at existing operations.  Disposal
of replaced systems represents a one-time occurrence for each
operation, and the extent of the impact depends on the type of
modification involved.  This one-time occurrence is treated as a
component of the retrofit capital cost for existing facilities.
5.5  Model Plant Cost Impacts
     This section presents installed capital and net annualized
cost estimates associated with the implementation of the new
emission control technologies at new and existing electroplating
operations.  (Net annualized costs incorporate chromic acid
recovery credits.)  Replacement costs, a component of annualized
costs, include disposal and transportation of the used impaction
material.  Disposal costs are based on the assumption that the
waste material is compacted to 50 percent of its original volume.
For purposes of comparison, capital and net annualized cost
estimates for single packed-bed scrubbers are presented along
with the costs associated with the use of the new emission
control technologies.  Tables 16 and 17 present these capital and
net annualized costs for new and existing hard chromium
electroplating model plants.  The basis for the development of
model plant costs is presented in Appendix B.  Detailed cost
breakdowns for each of the control technologies is presented in
Appendix C.
     All costs are presented on a model plant basis.  Costs are
presented in 1988 dollars to facilitate comparison with costs of
control technologies presented in the Background Information
Document for Chromium Emissions from Chromium Electroplating and
Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations.5
5.5.1  Mesh-Pad Mist Eliminators with Mesh Pads in Series.
     Table 16 shows that the capital costs for mesh-pad mist
eliminators with mesh pads in series range from $27,200 to
$143,600 for new plants, and $34,000 to $179,500 for existing
plants.  These costs represent a savings of 3 to 26 percent when
                                60

-------
O
05
O O
U 2
   H
S EH
      CO

.S
1
"a.
1
S

bi

|
H
S

C/3
                              UJ
                              UJ
                               V
                                    8388
                                    V"    ON
                                    ao    r-
                                    es   oo

                                    f~   r~
                                    \o'   r-'


                                                  8
                                                  ts
                                                  ts
                                                  rs
r-
ON
                                                  oo




                                    M    § .S
                                    "

                                            ^    •   .5
                                             1   i .1
         00
         oo
                                                           S
                                                           
                                                           in
                                                           
-------
  K CO
w
  H cr,

.§
i
Q.
~S


61

|
1
s
i
c/3
c

w
UJ
*
V
2
c
VI
'x
Ul

«j
2

r*
W5

UJ

,
2


Control technology
8
VO
5

g

oo"
8
iTi
•~T
r,
g
^D
oo"


8

— "

8
S:


Single packed-bed scrubber
8

00

8

t?

^
\G
«
g
00
ci
en



T^

g
2


Mesh-pad mist eliminator wi
























£
1
_c
M
I
JC
g
o
i

8

p
8
r-
in

g
oo
^.a
cn

8
tn
CfN*

g
t
T3
a
Packed-bed scrubber/mesh-p
























mist eliminator system
8

«

8

oC
8
00
CT^
10
8

-------
compared to the capital costs of single packed-bed scrubbers
installed at new or existing plants.
     As shown in Table 17, the net annualized costs of operating
this control technology are $13,500 to $76,700 for new plants,
and $14,900 to $84,100 for existing model plants.  For new
•plants, the costs are 40 to 100 percent higher than the costs of
operating single packed-bed scrubbers; for existing plants, the
costs are 30 to 90 percent higher.
5.5.2  Packed-Bed Scrubber/Mesh-Pad Mist Eliminator System.
     As shown in Table 16, capital costs of installing packed-bed
scrubber/mesh-pad mist eliminator systems are $58,100 to $195,600
for new model plants, and $72,600 to $244,500 for existing model
plants.  These costs are from 30 to 60 percent higher than the
capital costs associated with the installation of single packed-
bed scrubbers at these model plants.
     Table 17 shows that the net annualized costs of operating
packed-bed scrubber/mesh-pad mist eliminator systems range from
$17,000 to $72,100 for new model plants, and $19,300 to $80,000
for existing model plants.  For new plants, the operating costs
are 70 to 90 percent more than the costs associated with the use
of single packed-bed scrubbers.  For existing plants, the
operating costs are 70 to 80 percent higher.
5.5.3  Fiber-Bed Mist Eliminators.
     As shown in Table 16, the model plant capital costs of
fiber-bed mist eliminators for new plants are approximately
$114,600 to $457,100.  This is approximately 210 percent more
than the capital costs of $36,700 to $148,400 for single packed-
bed scrubbers.  For existing plants, single packed-bed scrubber
capital costs range from $45,900 to $185,500, and fiber-bed mist
eliminator costs are $126,100 to $502,800, a difference of about
170 percent.
     Table 17 shows that the net annualized costs for single
packed-bed scrubbers at new plants range from $9,700 to $38,800.
Net annualized costs for fiber-bed mist eliminators in these same
plants are $28,900 to $149,200, an increase of about 200 to
                                63

-------
280 percent.  For existing model plants, the net annualized costs
for fiber-bed mist eliminators  ($30,700 to $156,300) are 180 to
250 percent higher than the costs for single packed-bed scrubbers
($11,100 to $44,600) .
     As discussed in Sections 3.2 and 4.2.5, most vendors do not
recommend fiber-bed mist eliminators as the first stage of the
control system because of their tendency to plug.  It is
recommended that a coarse filtering device be provided upstream
of the fiber beds to prevent plugging and operational problems
that may arise from plugging of the fiber-bed media.  Packed-bed
scrubbers or serially positioned mesh pads are commonly used to
reduce the inlet loading to the fiber beds.  To obtain
representative cost estimates for this control systems approach,
costs for typical packed-bed scrubbers or mesh-pad systems should
be combined with costs for fiber-bed mist eliminators.
5.6  Summary of Economic Impacts
     An economic impact analysis of the new emission control
technologies used in the hard chromium electroplating industry
was performed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  The
results of this analysis are contained in a separate report,
Economic Impact Assessment of Emerging Technologies for
Controlling Chromium Emissions from Chromium Electroplating
Operations.19  The report estimates the impact of control costs
for a composite mesh-pad mist eliminator, a packed-bed
scrubber/mesh-pad mist eliminator system, and a fiber-bed mist
eliminator on the costs of chromium electroplating and on the
prices of hard chromium-electroplated products.
     Three product groups were chosen to demonstrate the economic
impacts associated with the use of the three new emission control
technologies.  The product groups are automobile components
(e.g., valves, piston rings, seals), industrial rolls, and
hydraulic cylinders used in backhoes.  When single packed-bed
scrubbers are used to control chromium emissions, the resulting
end product price increases are insignificant.  The analyses
shows that price increases attributable to the use of any of the
                                64

-------
new emission control technologies would be greater than those
associated with single packed-bed scrubbers.  However, these
increases are still negligible - less than one-half of one
percent of the prices of the two end products (automobiles, and
backhoes) and less than one percent for industrial rolls.  The
effect on end product price is relatively minor because
electroplating is generally performed on components of the end
product, and the cost increase for this operation is small
compared to the price of the end product.
     There would be some impact on small businesses.  Use of the
packed-bed scrubber/mesh-pad mist eliminator system or the fiber-
bed mist eliminator would create capital availability problems
for some (about 11 percent) of the smallest hard chromium
electroplating shops.  These problems would not be quite as
severe for these shops when the single packed-bed scrubber or the
composite mesh-pad mist eliminator are used.  The impact on
earnings, resulting from the use of the three new emission
control technologies, would cause 3 to 13 percent of the small
plants to close,  with fiber-bed mist eliminators resulting in the
greatest number of closures, and composite mesh-pad mist
eliminators having the least impact.  Between 1 and 2 percent of
small plants would be expected to close due to the impacts of
single packed-bed scrubbers.
     Table 18 presents a summary of the estimated impacts of the
use of the control technologies on electroplating costs.  The
results of the analysis indicate that increases in electroplating
costs would range from about 2 percent for large plants to
36 percent for small plants when composite mesh-pad mist
eliminators are used.  The use of packed-bed scrubber/mesh-pad
mist eliminators would result in electroplating cost increases
ranging from about 2 percent for large plants to 46 percent for
small plants.  Estimates for electroplating cost increases range
from 4 percent for large plants to 75 percent for small plants
when fiber-bed mist eliminators are used.   When single packed-bed
scrubbers are used, electroplating cost increases range from
                                65

-------
3 H
3"
eg










e?
S
u
c
•i
a.
1
2
V
a.












.1
JS
II
!i
•= 3
2 1
"5, E
ac


TO
E
.3
C
E


^2
s
tf*



i a
2 -a
•1 s
£ "E
M
3 "tJ
1*8
E


u
00
_«

E
3
£

13
E
M



« s
_o '5!
1 1
E "5
o _
II
< 0


O
00
—
E
1
E
__
1
tA
»
1
$
I
c
a
r»
n
ts

.**
}
£
C
6
                             00
                             en
fN

TJ|
en
6
vn
v~>
 i
en
en


vp
en
                             ts
                             en
                             oo
                             en
                                   ts
                                    i
                                   en
                                   I/1)
                                   6
                                   Os
                                   vo
                                   ob
                                   in
                                   O
                                   —   Os
                                   od   en
                                   en   —
                                    i    i
                                   r-;   en
                                   tN   00
                                   \c
                                   en
      Os
      >/•>
      tN
          q
          tN
                                       os
                                            s
                                            O
                                            <**
                                             O
                                            ts
                                             e
                                               s
 as
 o  o
i^E
                                            6 6
                                            v» «^
                                             66

-------
2 percent for large plants to 27 percent for small plants.
     Estimates of the changes in final product prices
attributable to increases in electroplating costs when new
control technologies are used are presented in Table 19.  The
final products are hard chromium-plated parts for a
representative automobile and a typical backhoe using hard
chromium-electroplated hydraulic cylinders.  As stated in
Table 19, price increases for industrial roll end products can
not be easily estimated because of their wide diversity.
However, for most industrial rolls, the cost of electroplating is
less than 10 percent of the final product price, and use of the
new control technologies would increase the price of the end
products by less than 1 percent.19
6.0  CONCLUSIONS/SUMMARY
     In terms of performance, composite mesh-pad systems and
fiber-bed mist eliminators achieved higher performance levels
than those achieved by packed-bed scrubbers.  The performance
levels for fiber-bed mist eliminators were higher than those for
composite mesh-pad systems.  However, the economic impacts
associated with the use of fiber-bed mist eliminators are much
greater than the impacts attributable to the use of either
composite mesh-pad systems or traditional packed-bed scrubbers.
Furthermore, the economic impacts presented for fiber-bed mist
eliminators were based only on costs of the fiber-bed mist
eliminator itself.  As discussed in Section 4.3, the relatively
high performance level of the fiber-bed mist eliminator was due,
in part, to the inlet load reduction attributable to the use of
the coarse control system upstream of the fiber-bed mist
eliminator.  If the costs for the upstream control system were
included in the cost of control for fiber-bed mist eliminators,
the economic impact would be even greater, particularly for small
businesses.  The economic impacts for composite mesh-pad systems
are not significantly different than those for traditional
packed-bed scrubbers.
                                67

-------

 QL
 o
 tt
 cu
   CO
   EH
§00
   OD
[U
     00
     Ol
   EH H
U
     to
£ « H
01 EH O
H, U O
M W ^
H J O

     u

EH
CO
cn
  U
  S
ss
*-* H
^








v»
tf
en
S
C
u
_g

4)
_O
'^
CL
"S
•5
1












0 00
§
5
§ s
Blinders- t
;l olant si:
O "C
a I
2
T3
>^
u.
JJ

medium

"3
E
(A




X)
M  •*  m —
i i ii
i i ii






i i ii
i i ii

: : : i

— O 00 (S
VO !/•> \O >/•>
ri n
•* •* r~ oi

O< T*- 00 Q
04 0 "T 55
rn r» r-' o
— — 04 —
- J 1
w w Jr i
•a « p 0 ^j
g Jigs
tL TS •• fi
|& 1 ±
i 1^ 3 1
g % 5 .2 -g
C u .§ a g
« o ^ a B -g
II p 1 1
D. £ O •« i JS
g .5 M .2 S •«>
o 13 ^ E H§ c
U £ u. c/5
                                             -£ s  s s
                                             b  «  .5^
                                             _ o
                                                 o .
                                             §•2 I

                                           68

-------
     The composite mesh-pad systems are economically viable

control options for all sizes of hard chromium electroplating
operations, as indicated by the increased use of these systems.

The use of fiber-bed mist eliminators, on the other hand, is

limited to a few,  very large hard chromium electroplating

operations.  It appears that, of the two new emission control

techniques, composite mesh-pad systems represent the more

reasonable approach to controlling emissions of chromic acid mist

from all hard chromium plating operations.

7.0  REFERENCES

1.    CECO Aerosol Fiber Bed Filters and Systems for the
     Collection or Recovery of Mists and Valuable Solids.
     Product Information Brochure.  1987.  CECO Filters, Inc.,
     Conshohocken, Pennsylvania,  p. 2.

2.    Memo from Barker, R.,  MRI, to Smith, A., EPArlSB.  November
     12, 1990.  Report of meeting with Kimre, Inc., May 10, 1990.

3.    Holmes,  T.L.  and G.K.  Chen.  Design and Selection of
     Spray/Mist-Elimination Equipment.  Chemical Engineering.
     October 15,  1984.  p.  86.

4.    Telecon.  Cassidy, M.,  MRI, with Kaulius, S., CECO Filters,
     Inc., Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.  February 6, 1992.
     Information regarding fiber-bed mist eliminators.

5.    Chromium Emissions from Chromium Electroplating and Chromic
     Acid Anodizing Operations- Background Information Document
     for Proposed Standards.  Preliminary Draft.  December 1990.

6.    Hexavalent Chromium Emission Test Report:  Precision
     Engineering,  Seattle,  Washington.  Advanced Systems
     Technology,  Atlanta, Georgia.  Prepared for U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
     North Carolina.  EMB Report 91-CEP-18.  December 1991.

7.    Emission Test Report:   Emission Test Results for Total
     Chromium Inlet and Outlet of the South Fume Scrubber.
     Monroe Auto Equipment,  Hartwell, Georgia.  IEA, Research
     Triangle Park, North Carolina.  Report No. 192-92-25.
     February 1992.

8.    Telecon.  Cassidy, M.,  MRI, with Moorehead, D., Monroe Auto
     Equipment, Hartwell, Georgia.  March 10, 1992.  Process
     information pertaining to the December 1991 chromium
     emissions test at Monroe Auto Equipment.


                                69

-------
9.   Telecon.  Cassidy, M.,  MRI,  with Brooks,  A.,  KCH Services,
     Inc., Forest City, North Carolina.   March 17, 1992.
     Information regarding the mesh-pad mist eliminator system
     tested at Monroe Auto Equipment.

10.  Chromium Electroplaters Emission Test Report:  Remco
     Hydraulics, Inc., Willits, California.  Advanced Systems
     Technology, Atlanta,  Georgia.   Prepared for U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,
     North Carolina.  EMB Report 91-CEP-17.  June 1991.


11.  Chromium Electroplaters Test Report:  Roll Technology
     Corporation, Greenville, South Carolina.   Peer Consultants,
     Dayton,  Ohio.  Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency,  Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.  EMB Report
     88-CEP-13.  August 1988.

12.  Chromium Emission Test  Results:  Building 32 Plating
     Facility BAAQMD Authority to Construct: 574 Naval Aviation
     Depot, Alameda.  Naval  Energy and Environmental Support
     Activity, Port Hueneme, California.  Prepared for Western
     Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
     NEESA 2-176.  UIC: 65885.  May 1991.

13.  Memo from Barker, R., MRI, to Mulrine, P., EPA/ISB.
     January 14, 1992.  Site visit report:  Naval Aviation Depot,
     Alameda, California.

14.  Telecon.'  Cassidy, M. ,  MRI,  to S. Kaulius, CECO Filters,
     Inc.,  Conshohocken,  Pennsylvania.   October 31, 1991.
     Information about design of fiber-bed mist eliminator units.

15.  Tower Packing and Internals Including Mist Eliminators.
     Glitsch, Inc., Dallas,  Texas.   Bulletin No. 217, 3rd ed.,
     1975, pp. 7-8.

16.  Memorandum from Barker, R.,  MRI,  to Smith, A., EPA/ISB.
     Summary of Fiber-Bed Mist Eliminator Cost Data for the Hard
     Chromium Plating Model  Plants.  December 28,  1989.

17.  Memorandum from Barker, R. and Shrager, S., MRI, to
     Vervaert, A., EPA/ISB.   Summary of Mesh-Pad Mist Eliminators
     with Mesh Pads in Series Cost Data for the Hard Chromium
     Electroplating Model Plants.  February l, 1991.

18.  Memorandum from Barker, R.,  and Shrager,  S., MRI, to
     Vervaert, A., EPA/ISB.   Summary of Packed-Bed Scrubber/Mesh-
     Pad Mist Eliminator System Cost Data for the Hard Chromium
     Electroplating Model Plants.  February 1, 1991.
                                70

-------
19.   Memo with attachment from Watkins,  T.,  EPA/SDB, to Barker,
     R.,  MRI.   April 15,  1992.  Transmittal of economic analysis
     document,  Economic Impact Assessment of Emerging
     Technologies for Controlling Chromium Emissions from
     Chromium  Electroplating Operations.
                               71

-------
    APPENDIX A.  SUMMARIES OF EMISSIONS TEST DATA AND PROCESS
                      OPERATING  PARAMETERS

     The results of chromium emissions tests for four hard

chromium electroplating operations are presented in this section.
                               A-l

-------







g 1
§ S i<
£H ^ ,* o
W o" 60 »• "c
M = .E 2 -
H 5i|i
% °M E§
0 -g 8 I E
H 5? -5 E -
w i c o °
m T,, S S tfl
S li"5!
2 W g .g =
" §111
.2 r> "C O-
fa « W J-!
o '5 "2 £ «
^^ rti ™ •* Jii
c « .c J:
^ eulP S
w 8
. .. I 1
^ 1 §|
< - g 'i •*
M § Q.'E s
w E 0 m e
1











w
o
i
<*•
o
Si
ou
a
v«
o
>
<
p*°i
d
Z
c
c*




fS
d
c
{§


6
c
3
ai











3
S
o
1 ,,—.,-. ,—. ^ ^
1 ' ' g S o • o o fs
rf o r— — o oo m
. . *— ' IT) O vc Tt
r> fs PO

£ i S! 8 § £ 2 8 8 S;
| * S s £ £ i
— — oo o
oo r- »/i
{S (S •*





£ § * 8 8 s • s g s
5s N <« 5 s-jqg £
— o rs __.
?5 2 5 S £, » 0
— — 
cSSsSo Mu^o^'S'a 8.05
§Qc^^2a.H «HS< oi js f-
o a u

ra oo r~ oo oo
d 8 - = S
^ d d -^ d
vO ^ ^ en — '
^ ^ ^ >n' ^

d d
>n r-i o o f*
£ O — « O
C- o d -^ d
>n ^ >^ ra ^^
• Os 10 • 00
f~ oo en f- *r>
r~ «* t~
d d





vo vc  r~ oo o so
d 8 ^08
-^ d d ^ d
00 ^ ^-^ so ^^
•* gi % * -
•<*• ts •*
d d

/-™\
m
0
•*^- £ ^"^ "*^-s
f? 3 <^r^
E f 1 1 S ?
•c- ^ •« fe T 5
=5 & " ^ ^ &
£ sSS c E £ ™
^^ JS — " ^ ^
u ^ 5 ^ v. <
J3 ~C •* -2 JC d!
"Sb g> S g> "So g>
u«: e u E ^ n

A-2

-------





W
i < 1.
EH .2 o
CO u" oo g- c
w s .£ £ 7
^ S 5 x u
tf> ^L4? o
CO - £ u «
(C—4 p* ^ C .M
O -r o 3 c
LJ •••• "5
CO 1 e 1 ^
s -3JII
^' UU C ^3
w I II I
PL, ^w ^ '
CO o
? .i § 1
< - 2 8 -
H J S-'i s
™ 5: O W H
§
EH









%

*0
Ml
2
V
d
z
3
OS






d
c
3
^

d











I
I I ! O O z^~ *n '—^ ^^ /fm^
1 ' ' vo o ov (— o o m
S un vo . — O vp
• lr ^0 en eN S
^ en CN *" "^ ®
O r^ oo
in •* TT

"^ (N fS 00 ^ • ®® ^ ^£
OV • ». **^ ^5 Ov ^* ^t
C °° ^ S S S £
~ — p oo
•
-------








tfl
~« •££
EH i
~^ 2
(Q,
Q < g^
£ -r o
E-i « -
~_ -TT 3
co « oo g- o
W = £ 2 °
H Ills
co . o u is
2 oo i p e
o .sal -g
H 5 "u E :=
CO 1 p 0 u
CO 'So 1 .5 «
H C •= " "S
S W i 13 E
" j|n
Cij tfl 4j '
o 'o "° u •§
° 0 B t "
^ ii^s
CO g
1 §
• .. « .s
m § c «
> -S .2 g
< *i S % -
M § 0.1 IS
S E 0 u £
1









series
<*-
o

V
$
u
V
>
<
fl
d
Z
c
Q£







(*4
6
Z
c
s
ot.


6
Z
c
3
C£










1
Q
1 ' ' § § <^ §\ s~ s~ «?r 0?^
* ^ ^ d S 51 § 2 b
r-^r*-, ..j ~ *. . O "•
-» S ^ "* S~*
C- C- ^ ^
00 fS »vi
** on . ^J*
— Q 00,^
^* ^r ^" ^
O
6
18*88. §11 1 Ht
5 Eg S'' °ei
fS rN _ _ ^^ jT) O
~" ^^ ^ (7v ^^<«
g s | 1 § 2 « E 1 I'i 1 I '! 3 > 1L > 3
1 a 1 I 1 £ a £ 1 3- Jh I E° E- E £
00 U
'"•" «^*> f-1^
»o in ^^
§62
o *~~ x
^ v, " ^ o
en r-i _
* 6 «
0
6
§>n •*
f^ b
• O ™"
o ^ x
v — ' •*•• ^
^j- -^ j
ON en fsj
>rf XI fs|
^ 0 ^
— o
o
6
/— s
7
o
«"^V
Of?
O O
5 C- j?
fe> C ^
>29 J= t
_ > M
E £ ^
% "" -5
•o _£ <
1> "So >
fc ^! C

A-4

-------




^3
.*
i
JO
E
J
<*•-
c_. < ~ ti
f"1 n •« 3
g ° II
n I 15
CO b oo JS u
H i e C.-5
rj 3- - o .=
t-1 - « i i_
e cu H o
g Illi
0 .5- 8 E E
H 3 "53 3 i=
en iS" c 1 °
co 5 o 'K
ri o .5 c .s
1 312'
* «*]*•
to i- _ _ J= jc
0 §1 s s
X S I 0 S
gj
g


CO g
ba
3 M
.. 1 1
f S c «
• -I .£ 8
< ~ s % -
i g/e TS
W ^ £• .= ,«
j 0. O UJ t-
§
P— 1
u1






•s s
E, u
2 *
ft) "tfl
j* «l
> *i
<

•<*•
o
Z
c
3
a/
Ui



m
O
Z
c
3
Q£







O
c
3
oi










1
Q
! : 'II l-l 1 i|i
* = s a" a s &
l^ (N fN ^^ \D ^^
^^ "^ — * fS
g g 8*5

£§"!§ §-8 8 s J|
ON ON » - ^ — sc f>2!;o
" ^^ ?5 S » 2^2
r) <^ (s  •<*• O .,;
r*^ r^ *• NO
f^* r^ ^^ ^^




^™ ^3 ™" f*^ ^3 ^^ T^ J^' *^*^ ^"^ ^^ /^^
n\?j.?sX ^ • O © WiO>/^
^-<^ooS ^ - 2 ® 2ri2
00 ON . . <-'Or4 •*CJO
- *>£ SNO'^" 6^0
ts ^ cs ts -^ r- ^^
— -^ ^ ^ . ^.
NO m r- 5 —
r^ — ON ~ •
r~ r- ^





/^
= ^
_ E ^ 2 ^
C »- 0 ''c . '5 "ui O ^
•3js ~~ ' c u >- e om
! * ^ oU i 21 '§ E 1 ° f
8 S «- 2. 2 £3, -S .2 & 1? ^
.Sgo'e ^£e?> o^ cg^^fc.
- .a « 6 1 | rf | .? 5 1 e 1 | I f
_ ^g^s lis^Eil |-§lb<
? a f 1 8 3 ll-ll^ll 1 ? 1 1 >
§ & 1 § 1 ^ all ^Jh 1 ES E " e
o o u















(A
U
1
g
"8
1
"o
u

§
«
E
£
!
B
c
tn
1
.~
'w
_>>
1
E

|
u
aHexavalent

A-5

-------








1)
1
g
? -tf S
r j ^*» i^> Q
s °. is
1 Iffl
^S Q_ O O
tt) § o .£ £
J2 P ^" W C
0 .9-| E '§
H 3 ~ _3 ;r
H " 1 e 1
S a E -g =
W < 2-^-g
•Q -S *g py
r_ O U ^ t
0 |1 s|
^ S X 0 S
1
g
&
y
. ..I.I
? 1 §S
< 1 2 ;a -
W ™ /&* ^ c5
1-^
H








<*- 01
O _O
O *T
DO S
2 T
^ O
^ **



VC
O
Z
g
o:


iri
O
c
of







(S
0
c
3
at










3
O
§g 5^-5-5- ^srp
— •* ^_, ^ O JE ^ vo ^
_*• ^r ^^ O^ ••" J^ O
v~ irt ^0 vo o Si™^ o
^- *-s r^ ^ r-
oo *n r- ^o t^-
^ t*} t*} *** '
r* r^ —

5;R^88 ^^g 8 S^inio
rs o cT *M •• . f*^ .
— ci ci ^^ vo v^
( — *o f*^ "~* •


— omoo ^rs^ ^^ ^^^^^^
5 2 g^ S § S~| § 1^1
^ - ° °ts'S 2-^2-
f~ \0 O JO S
? P "^ ri






oo""o\°°-.^ ^^ \c — o^o
" « ^ w^ *A O ^ O
~" "^ ^^ rs fi oo
>ri — r~ • O
fS — — f~ •
r- r- —





^.
e *?
'E °

C •" o c .'e^uiC1^
•aJ! ^-^cu~F e or->
B * ^ ^ U „- 2^ -Se^OS
«>o- « ^ s*^ w§t^^<:
i.ii!l JIIll
?2«§"oSo ^l^o£j-o PoE^E
CQc«^O.H Sh-S< 55 J=F-
u o u


















tfi
o
"E.
te
"8
1
"o
o
performed on
o
c
en
'en
"rt
i
E
3
|
U
xavalent
V
a
A-6

-------









,
g
EH
Cfl
W
E"

W
^
f-*
O
H
w
rr\
Uj
\—\
2
W
I*
O
>H
(/I
vO
1
 «« vq. S ° g
- vo m _ f^
(S t^ (S
^« ^-^
in
vO
r~





— in oo O Q '^r-'T-
££vo-gs ^d8
Q\ Q\ r. f. %— " f^J
- *= £ ov r~"
fN "~ Ci-
m
t~~
t-


— m * o Q .-T^voiT-
1 2 *> § 1 Sol
— vo m •* ,C
2 ~~ ^ 5
VD
t^
r-
c
'E
e: ^
e fc- o e
•a Jc "O c
g- * 3 < ^ 1
as.- 3 „- ^ 2
1 8 a g -S § * |
» -a 2 g E 1 e £
•Soa3 8 S a -a
«3 Q.EO— ^- o. 'S 2
fc«2g.*X2 •KE'52
1 tS 1 £ 1 ^ a fS 1 4?
o o
                     8-8
                     o (s o
         vO
         VO
     ON

     O
                     ^s
                     2  d
         -^V
         O
         O
in  r
8  c
                     fs  _: en
                     —  O oo
                          O
                          6
                        §00 O
                      .  d *.
                     o  ^ o
                     ^  ON ~
         Tf
         vo
                     en
                     b
                      8  2
                   m

                       >

                ul
                               ex
                               8
          n
          i
          E
          3

          1
aHexavalen
A-7

-------




^3

JD
E
< *$
0 1*
•• " /••
~S BO ^
£ .E -
r 5 ^
b M — —
-5 c TS. s
I -r o o
- « i u
C Q. « 0
1 2|1
.9- % E E
3.15 2 -
u E E -
o 1 e .2
*- 3 _C C
5 % «
< S -0 -S
°"ii
S "2 « H
" « c u
Sa OS



 c u
a. O tu E-













•o S
H
U vi
<
> £



VO
6
B
Oi








iri
O
B
3
tt






(S
6
c
s
oi














2
«
Q
! 1 ! O O "~ > vO O ' — • /~> /— > , — ,
1 ' ' S o oo. o o cnoN —
r~— *COOO QP-O
" " ^"^ O CT> o • ^
80 = 8 R 8 a|I
s_^ ^_^ >D
.- _ oo f^ -
**• w ^
\D so O o
^ «- 6

^* in ^ O O /'*N \o /~v ^^ /<~s -*~^ /— ^
| 2 s; 1 1 t e 1 1 i 2 5
t^ w> •• •• ^"*^ ^^ OO ^3 ^^ ^^
S * s a a a sjo
^M \^j -~ j *r)
«N X *C
tn O — O ir>
>£l VO O
r~ r- •
o







£8^88 ^^22 ^«^
s? - « ° 8 e°2 2 8^8
5= ^g » r>" r." 6^0
N — r<-• _ r;
— • — • >— ' .^ Z: V
OX 00 P~ ^ ^
\c, \o On
r~ r~ m
O
O




££988 ^^22 ?T - -
Se - * °. * ^°g g 8^-8
- *> r> <*> t~~ *>' 6 ° 6
?i ~ AI rs >n
*r so _• m
\D >O O o
f-^ p~
0






/^v
e  ^ 1 ^ Ut|&
«>yefc elw^^S'i c£|^""
„ -s | a 3 g § 1 S e 1 1 1 -S 1 J ^
13 ^..S«— CS.-K *^r~ -5s -3 — -^ :? -^
2«gj2«2 »E-S 3^ s « = 3 SP ^b 2P
S S & H csE—2< c/5 jsF—


















vi
4i
"5.
«
"8
1
"o
0
O
"8
|
4J
0^
B
B
s
'w
p^
"e3

E
|
0
•**
C
_u
13
>
03
X
u
X

-------





<
 -E & s
FH > •= C :=
^ .2 « 
S lol#
CD
i








o
s
<*-
O
w
w
2
u
<
PI
6
c
{§






f^t
O<
o
Z
c
S.






6
Z
c
tt











3
*
Q
1 ' ! S S p o g § r-
"t °°. ^^ — in \o c
^ 2 S 2 2 e

— 00 PI
oo >o —
PI PI

oTS^SS 0^25*55 So
S * § 1 e - 1 1 9
""i C^ C*^ *Ti ^ ^ O
^5 ^* ••• ^^ v_j
O — ^^ s^ ^.
— OC PI
ON VO —
PI PI






1 8 g ! £ E^ll i
§ « ° 822 a
<=> ^ — ON
CO T O
r- w> —
PI PI





^ S S 11 £ " § § S
O ON - - ^-^ O «S 9 O
S «N S j* fT n — m
p~ u-i —
(^1 C**l





e
'I
•1 "E
E o
/^ ^* en
U. rn "«
.E ^ °^ E w O
;*.i* .* i ! •!•!
U^^,, Co CO ^ M 0 W
1 e 1 g 3 § * ^ _ | 9- llf
_ 11 SI HHli! ill
iiiui SUM* IP
o a u
00 t~- — ON —
— CO NO If) O
NO — 9 \o ts
^ v^ 0, ^ ^
CO fS O ON PI

n r— ^^ ON oo
ON f*^ t/1) "^ P^
; — •* • — •

O >n >o  60 — _ > 60
.Owe P J5 C_;
ssiirs
"So «> g gi "So g»
^ e « E M E

A-9

-------














^-
EH
< fff
Q £

EH <« 5
(z> e a
W < 5 ,
EH U M u
e O
* « *^
o i .1° §•'!
K s ^
w r a o -
C/} u O "15 ,S£
S ~ 8 ^
tO o "a3 -2 S
— — £ o.
cC S3 ^* "§J
0 -o '£. "a |
rv Z Js « 0
•fj O o JS X)
 u
j fj
rtj W
3 C
w .. 8 .2
J % = «
CQ -s .2 8
3, — "S 's
^ J O.'E 1
Ou O U H








u
t_
u
rt
(A

*C
J5


m
0
Z
e
S3
°*






ts
o
c
3
Oi






o
z
c
3


















75
Q
11 oo ^S2 ° oo^o
Sin r-.o oo <^^; —
. . ^--_>n r~ ^o*~' f^ O ' P^
00 f^ \O ^" ^"
cs _•
— o


Ovvo-oo 'JnS 2 S^^0
— . f*^ "^ \^ ( — \D • O U OO CTN •""
fNJ l/>^ M^ * » ^ Sw^
C; J^ ;.. — o o "^002-
* O fsj m

O 00 " •
ro (S in (~






OvvO'OO ^flS ° OOONfl
— -m^fhr*^ t^-O oo ON-;"™
O ON - * ^^ -^ in t^ t^ ^ O
fNJ \O— **v ,^ .^.
^ fnnfsO?\ o—o
o ^ ^ ^
oo t— m 2 ' S
ONON-- •— ' — m r- t£o
^™ 00 ON ^ -^ — ." ^C v^, -J
~i r^fS^O^ 2-2-
g fs!3- "~!
ON (S O " '*

"• O











C
'E
C i rT
^ E o o
U^ rn~ ^ ^- ^ E
•1 „ * ~ E «• c ? ^ 1
? * 3 ^ oU S 2 •§ g Z5 " S g
| a - a - 2 * .2 .| & £ 5 -g
11 ! 1 1 Illiil.il Jill
2 o 9--S y"«-s P" -2 3^ "2^ E'3"")'ob"3)S
82isi?;lii'&is'ilE-spei
u u u
VO 00 O
NC , • —
2 "^ o
2-^2
m
O ._• oo
(s 
kg/hr (Ib/hr) (10'3
mg/Ah (gr/Ah)









ob
1
&o
c
•c
3
•o
=
>
&
g
•a
u
•£
"8
1
§
o
u
•>
rt
&"
E
_Q
s
c.
j=
"S
j=
•8
I

w
^^

(U
2?
£
>
rt
.£
"5
•a
3
"o
_e
—
§
c
2
u
1
a

A-10

-------







h « 1
(d! ,*ag 3
D < § °
U — <-
r. , DC O
£j w C «
CO ~ ~ n
td — e .2 '§
H *l N
CO " °" 'w w
O — o "" E
H « J£ E "2
rr\ O W 3 **
w 3 E '£ J"
b 8 .2 e a
§ nil
[L, o o {3 Xi
>H £ I K 6/5
§
W ij
y
= c
* O Q
o c " -s
H 0 § g
* slli
W a. O ID E-
1











"*- Bl
O V
o t«

^ *^



d
Z
c
<£








Z
e

d
c
3
oi














"a
Q
11 8 8 J? oo Q" 2~ S~
•o. » ^ - 8 8 8
2 ? S rf -f d
^ ^ Ci Ci *"

*/% O O
fS 00 •
r>

5 ^ — ' \D ^r — ^ ^ ^
0 w -^ ^ ^
P « 00







"^ ^5 ^^ f"^ ^5 "^^ C**l ^^" i^* "^^
o\5-oc ^ a\ 2 S f^
^^OOfCrS r~-.O O O
O ^ * ^ ^"^ *"• f*** ( — • O
ts ts vo r^ ^ ^ x
\C ^ P^ f^ fS^ fN >-'
vfi, — •*

os§-§g f^r^Q 2 5D
~ S oo K "^ •* d
\c ?% Q ci """
\o o (s
ts oo •
t~~ vO ^



C
«M "^3 f^
11 b
^^ fc « — •
U. m 13 ^^
e i o e . « C-
•s j: N— ' c o co
Eye-^js M -TS o *
l-^.ia" 1 ! HI
•sS|g-S|^^^^9- I 1 X
««.aStc|0-.£?^-a e 2 1
- =lsS§8.5^«l l"5^
i s f s i ! * r§ 1% 1 ! Ill
*• ^S ** 35 . r *^ r *? ^Z ^"^ *^ ^"^ " r
4J U C/3 M CU r™ srt i™ ^ ^ C/3 jC t"*
o o u
X^S /"^ x^^. (•*••. /*^,
00 >/) m OO I/P
S b 8 Z o
0, ^ 0, O, "><
00 \,Q ^ Tf y^
^ >— ' O ^f S— '

°' 8 * °' I
d 6
t- U. O O '—
r~ o o i~- °
o, x o_, o, x
§^ oo 2 §
*^ ac
^^
0 O




So 8^2
2- JS 2- 2 —
00 ^ W^ 00 ^
m ^^- ^f m ^^
do ^ d g
d d

cs v> en oo 
-------






<
U
„
re
T3
1 o
§ 5 :
r , 5^ ^4
co Q S .«
"I i1!
15 'H i-
co •> 60=5 5
s < .s 1 g
2 rl-Ti
g 111!
H , -o o »
w S 'I | E

Clj .M P O |
o IJ §1
>n CO U H E
**?
5?
§
£5
03 8
: .. 8 .1
^ § c «
? -s .2 g
' ^ « w —
flj ^ Jr J™ ^
S *^ C W3
u s: o uu H
t "]
m
EH









o|
M V
2 -
U trt
< ~


*
^
c
3
o:

d
c
a:



c>
c
CrC




6
§
""











3
i i ! o ^ S" °° o o
-l ^ S ~ § S
_ ON 00
G- G-
fi O
f^ CS
00 00

ON^r©r**O ^*" • 2 52
— . 2« cr^ oo

^5 ^i^ ^-^
ON m
OO 00
*""* ^" ^O ^*^ f™^ *~°- CT\ -^^ ^^
o\^or~o ^-Sc 2
~ ~" "^ * oo" oo"
** ~" G- Ci
00 OO



ON^oovS vnP~'2 2
-^r4 — ONOv vO — O O
V^ - ' — ' 1^ —
^ ^ — ®* °*
O -^ -J.
^ fN
OO OO



OsrfoOvcK *O • 2 2
55
-------






< -J
U u
1 '^
C
< 1 |
g < i
Q o' a>
PH I «
w Q 1*
B llfl
* -S « s
w •>§••« 5
S < S . g
S I* 11
S lei!
H . 2 •"! •-
S CN '£ " E
H en o e .Q
oo S 9 o
CK .S " * 4
0 2-2 g|
3 w j; ~
>H CO I H U,
§
CO y
Si
a <—
• ..si
V 1 J I
1 .. « <« -5
<£ — 2 M
* J 8/i s
W cu O U H
"1
t— J
9
g







•o 8
||
41 V)
> £
<




en
6
Z
c
3
C£






CN
6
Z
c
3
Qi




O
Z
c
d










2
es
Q
i : : g 8 ^ ^ a a
— OC NO — Q O
2 R » b £
~" C- G.
ON t-»
•t en
00 00



5 S I § | £"8 8
vo-- •~' fN r~
5 2 - 2 a a
o ^ ^
OO rj-
fS —
00 OO





5 1 § 2 | 2-8 8
in . . ^-^ oo m
~ <* ?S t- ON* ON'
•* ^ ~ fS  r^i s^**
oo fN i m
2 o 2 b
"x b o "x
r~ v 9 m
-J * *^
OO '*~' . . ""
^ 0 V V
Tf _ ^
b 9
*"* (^
x n
o V
ri
°T - "t^T
2 o £5
"x b o "x
(N y 9 o1
^ ^ ™" fsj

i§

X
r-
en

/— S ,^^ ^ /— V
oo in i in
b 5 2 b
^S5
V^ *~*f ^™
rT 5^ V V
b 8 ^
— • o
X ^^
en V







0%
rt
3
£
8Hexavalent chromi

A-13

-------








£
3
O
^^ w
u •** •§
c«" .E 5
T3 TO
C — 1 t/J
rf E ' -o
S w w J5
tjj ,£ "c '

Q •— " J5
H f 11
CO Q «s ^s
£ Jill
« — "5 i-
co '> ^ J2 £
§ 1 1 1 I
W Z E I "
H i 3 i: !2
S (N '£ "o £
W f> g •£ -
JIT J2 CC ("i
JT . •« O J£ [^
0 2 -g u S
5 * o rE
>-* ffl I U. U.
1
^
1 g
" 1 .i 1
V, • • rt w — S
(tf *- U W
J 8.1 s
w a. O tu f-
j
§
H







"» |
£ *-
« «

^f *^

















c^
d
c




d
c
3
a:













ri
D
!|!gg 0*00 ^P^w
^ 8. £ - g g b 6 g
^ ^ ^c vo x ^-^ d
™™ "^ ^^ f^\ "*°^
S^

r- r~ ^ ^
* "* — d
d














-sggg °~"s s  w a H> O^ ^C
*S».^r *3* u- ^; 'p.SoO1--^
i 1 S i if | = 1 1 1 ill??
KM t_ i 2S w ^ 
-------









< 5
u *•
* g
rf i '
1 5 1
O OD
H $ -s -
CO Q * w
W G %P ^'i
frn .2 -1 £ §
•J « — u
CO •> g-jj 2
2 < £ « g
s in!

CO Z | g ~

2'S •*• e
C^ C ^ *•
W ^ P T3 -q
£>•= « J
fa .E o js •*?
0 2-E 5 jj
= es o :2
>-> ca I u. u.
1
W g
g c
^ . . c« .2
1 .1 !
' .. M 5) J2
< c t: .- -
1 a. E S3
ca a. O tu f-
CD
3
r j







'o o
&'5
s1!

> ^






o
Z
04


^
2
§

*




0
Z
c
*














«
§^- oo g- 5- oo^ f^f ^
-~S^ b52b
* 8 ffoo'oo" 'xdo'x
— — « f^ ^ . f*l
00 •s^' ^s
^D ^i ^_j W
ro fS ^ \O V
"x ®
ON V


| M 2 « | e - | 1 °b82Vb
^™ Os r^ f^^ — * __^ .j — ' x ^
^^ ff^ ^OsOs XO^X
0 C- C ^: V, rn ^
Tf ^ .^ M V
!/•! tf^ *" O •— -
b p
ot V
Os"


»;3S22 S" °^ S S oo^ &tt vo"1
5 g 2 5 S s - | I 2S2b
C "^ Pi & 00 #3 X 6 o X
o -• ' *~* - in "* _;
2
X
rn





c
"E
c ^
E'~ 0
r ., (/j
"• rn "° K ^O
c js o g . *„ C-f?
•— _ J3 ^-^ O C O o
gse^je rl -'S S S;;^^
•^3 V « 2 •-e'oC-i
"-^. ® '« M t /— s 3
_ jigS" 8 1 2 — J 1 5s .3>"5i^
SQt«J£a.f2 3£S<^$^ ^"2
a a u





















«
JO
ca
en
"S
"o
u
§
"8
£
£
S.
^
B
ed
^
(A
'«
"e3

e
iromiur
sxavalent ch
*/
C8
A-15

-------
      APPENDIX B.  BASIS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODEL PLANT
           COSTS FOR NEW EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
     This section presents the methodologies for development of
capital and annualized costs of new emission control technologies
used to control chromium emissions from hard chromium
electroplating model plants.
                               B-l

-------
   APPENDIX B.  BASIS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODEL PLANT COSTS
              FOR NEW EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
     Capital and annualized costs are presented in this section
on a model plant basis.  Each model plant is composed of model
tanks of various sizes.  Figures B-l and B-2 present plan views
of the model plant configurations and ventilation system
specifications.  Table B-l presents model plant parameters upon
which installed capital and annualized costs are based.  Cost
factors used to calculate annualized costs are shown in
Table B-2.  Costs provided by vendors were converted to
appropriate year dollars using ratios of the following Chemical
Engineering plant indices:  November 1988, 347.8; September 1990,
360.2.  Data sources used to calculate capital and annualized
costs are presented in Table B-3.
B.I  MIST ELIMINATORS WITH MESH PADS IN SERIES.
     The mist eliminators with mesh pads in series incorporate
the use of a composite mesh pad in the design.  It consists of a
double set of chevron blades followed by three mesh pads in
series.
     Vendor C provided cost data for mist eliminators with mesh
pads in series based on the model plant information presented in
Table B-l.9  Table B-4 presents the capital cost estimates.
Vendor C also provided operating parameters (e.g., fan and
washdown water pump horsepower requirements, washdown frequency,
water consumption rates, maintenance hours, and the life
expectancy of the units) that were used to calculate annualized
costs.^
B.I.I  Unit Costs
     This section presents estimates of installed capital and
annualized costs for the two different sizes of mist eliminators
with mesh pads in series specified in the model plants.
                               B-2

-------
     B.I.1.1  Capital Costs.  Table B-5 presents capital costs
for the two different sizes of mist eliminators with mesh pads in
series specified in the model plants.  As indicated in Table B-5,
Unit A represents a design gas flow rate of 340 m3/min
(12,000 ft3/min),  and Unit B represents a design gas flow rate of
990 m3/min  (35,000 ft3/min).  The capital costs include  (1) the
purchased cost of the control device and cost for auxiliaries
such as inlet and outlet transition zones, exhaust fans and
motors, and stack; (2) direct installation costs for erection,
electrical panels and wiring, instrumentation and controls, and
piping; and (3) startup costs.  Installation costs are based on
the assumption that no major structural modifications are
necessary.  The purchased equipment cost includes taxes and
freight costs, which are assumed to be 3 and 5 percent of the
base equipment cost,  respectively.3  The startup cost is assumed
to be 1 percent of the purchased equipment cost.3
     B.I.1.2  Annualized Costs.  Table B-6 presents annualized
costs for the two sizes of mist eliminators with mesh pads in
series specified in the model plants.  The annualized costs
include direct operating costs such as utilities; labor and
maintenance 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 mist eliminators with mesh pads in
series.  The increase in annual electrical cost results from the
additional horsepower needed by the fan to overcome the pressure
drop added to the ventilation system by the control device.  The
incremental fan electrical costs were calculated based on the
following equation:
                               B-3

-------
     Fan electrical cost, $/yr =  [(0.746 kW/hp)(hp)(t)](c)
where:
     kW = kilowatt
     hp = horsepower requirement
      t = operating time, hr/yr
      c = electrical cost, $0.0461/kWh6

      Water consumption costs are associated with the washdown of
the chevron blades and mesh pads.  The chevron blades are washed
down every 8 hours.  The mist eliminator with mesh pads in series
consists of three pads.  Each pad is washed down at different
time intervals.  Pad 1 is washed down every 8 hours; pad 2 is
washed down every 24 hours; and pad 3 is washed down every
120 hours.  The amount of washdown water required is equal to the
sum of washdown water required for the chevron blades and each
pad.
      The washdown water is assumed to be supplied through the
main water source for the plant.  Typically, the main source of
water can provide adequate pressure to wash down the mist
eliminator.  The water costs were calculated using the  following
equation:

      Water cost, $/yr =  [(V)(F)chevron blade(S)](C) +  [(V)(F)
pad l           +   t(v) (F) pad 2  
-------
of the pads is $6,7io m3  (190/ft3).  Annualized mesh pad
replacement costs include the actual replacement costs as well as
the disposal and transportation costs associated with the used
materials.  The replacement costs of the pads were calculated
based on the following equation:

      Replacement costs, $/yr = [(V)(C)(CRFm)]
where:

        V = volume of mesh pad material per unit, m3  (ft3)
        C = cost of mesh pads, $/m3  ($/ft3)
     CRFm = capital recovery factor of 0.264, based on an
            interest rate of 10 percent and a depreciable life of
            5 years for the mesh pads

      The disposal and transportation costs for the used pads
were calculated as follows:
      Disposal and transportation costs, $/yr =

where:
[(N)(dc  +  tc)(CRFm)]
        N = number of 55-gal drums, V/Vd, rounded to the next
            higher whole number
        V = volume of mesh pad material disposed for each control
            device assuming 50 percent compaction, m3  (ft3)
       Vd = volume of 55-gal drum, 0.21 m3   (7.35 ft3)
       dc = disposal cost, $50.00 + 10 percent tax/drum5
       tc = transportation cost, $40.000/drum5
     CRFm = capital recovery factor of 0.264, based on an
            interest rate of 10 percent and a depreciable life of
            5 years for the mesh pad
      The annual cost of operating labor is based on the amount
of labor required to operate the control device plus supervision.
                               B-5

-------
The operator labor is based on an assumption that it requires
0.5 hour per day for the operator to perform routine maintenance
and turn the control device on and off.  The labor rate was
assumed to be $8.37/hour.1(2  The operator labor is independent
of control device size and number of operating hours per day.
The supervisor labor cost is assumed to be 15 percent of the
operator labor cost.
      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
                   •i *}
rate of $9.2I/hour.  'z  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.
      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.3  Property taxes,
insurance, and administration were collectively assumed to be
4 percent of the total capital cost.3
      Capital recovery costs associated with the mesh-pad mist
eliminator unit(s) were calculated using the following equation:3

      CRC =  [TCC]  [(i{l + i}n)/({l + i}n-l)]
where:

     CRC = capital recovery cost, $/yr
     TCC = total capital cost of control device(s), $
       i = annual interest rate, 10 percent
       n = depreciable life, 10 years9

B.I.2  Model Plant Costs
      This section presents the installed capital and annualized
costs of applying mist eliminators with mesh pads in series to
small, medium, and large hard chromium plating model plants.
Model plant costs were compiled for new and existing plants.  The
                               B-6

-------
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.
      B.I.2.1  New Facility Costs
      B.I.2.1.1  Model plant capital costs.  Table B-7 presents
the purchased equipment, installation, startup, and total capital
costs of mist eliminators with mesh pads in series for the hard
chromium plating model plants.  The capital cost estimates were
compiled from Table B-5 as described below.

      Small model plant = Column A costs
      Medium model plant = Column B costs
      Large model plant = 2(Column B) costs

      B.1.2.1.2  Model plant annualized control costs.   The
annualized costs for the model plants are presented in Table B-8.
The annualized cost estimates, with the exception of the labor
requirements, indirect costs, and chromic acid recovery credits,
were compiled from Table B-6 as described below.

      Small model plant = Column A costs
      Medium model plant = Column B costs
      Large model plant = 2  (Column B) 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 model large hard chromium plating plant, which requires a
total of two control devices, the operator and maintenance labor
requirement was calculated as follows:
                               B-7

-------
      Operator and maintenance  labor,  $/yr  =  4,740  + (0.3) (4,740)
      = $6,160
      [instead of  (2) (4,740) =  $9,480]

      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  B-6.
      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 model large hard chromium plating
plant, the indirect  costs were  calculated as  follows:

                                overhead          taxes, ins., adm.

      Indirect costs,  $/yr = 0 . 60 [ (1.3) ($4,740)+2($4,140)] +  [0.04($143,600)]
     = $8,700 + $5,700  = $14,400

      The chromic acid recovery credits are calculated based on
the estimated removal efficiency  for mist eliminators with  mesh
pads in series 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
                                B-8

-------
     1.923 = ratio of chromic acid molecular weight (100) to
             hexavalent chromium molecular weight  (52)
         C = cost of chromic acid  (Cr03), $3.28/kg  ($1.49/lb)8

      B.I.2.2  Existing Facilities Costs.  Retrofit costs for
each model plant include costs for ductwork modifications and for
removal and disposal of existing control devices.  Actual
retrofit costs will vary and depend on site specific factors such
as plant layout, control device configuration, and adequacy of
existing fan capacity.  The retrofit cost estimates presented
here are believed to be representative of expenditures that
existing facilities would incur.
      B.I.2.2.1  Model plant retrofit capital costs.  Based on
information from vendors of scrubbers and mist eliminators
(chevron-blade and mesh-pad),  the average increase in the total
capital cost to retrofit an existing facility is 25 percent.13
Therefore, the estimated retrofit capital costs of mesh-pad mist
eliminator units for model small, medium, and large plants are
$34,000, $89,800, and $179,500, respectively.
      B.I.2.2.2 Model plant retrofit annualized costs.  Total
annualized retrofit costs of mesh-pad mist eliminator units for
each model hard chromium plating plant are shown in Table B-9.
The annualized retrofit costs are the same as the annualized
costs of a new control system except for the capital recovery
costs and indirect costs, because these costs are a function of
the installed capital cost.  Capital recovery costs for a
retrofit situation are higher because the installed capital costs
for retrofit control systems are 25 percent higher than those for
new systems.  Indirect costs include overhead, taxes, insurance,
and administration.  Taxes, insurance, and administration are
based on 4 percent of the capital costs; thus, these costs are
also higher for retrofit than for new facilities.
                               B-9

-------
B.2.  PACKED-BED SCRUBBER/MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEM
      Capital cost estimates for the packed-bed scrubber/mesh-pad
mist eliminator systems applied to two model plants were obtained
from two control device vendors (designated as Vendors A
and C).4'10'14  Table B-10 presents the capital cost estimates
from both vendors.  The vendors also provided operating
parameters (e.g., fan and recirculation pump motor horsepower
requirements, water consumption rates, and operator and
maintenance hours that were used to calculate annualized costs.
The costs presented here are based on Vendor A's estimates only
because they are more comprehensive than Vendor C's estimates.
Vendor C's installation costs are significantly lower than
Vendor A's installation costs, which are consistent with previous
estimates for other control devices.  A mesh pad useful life of
3 years was assumed by Vendor A and a life of 10 years was
estimated by Vendor C.  For purposes of this analysis, a life of
5 years was considered to be realistic.
      Model plant capital costs based on Vendor C's estimates are
$25,000 to $62,000 lower than costs based on Vendor A's
estimates.  Model plant annualized costs based on Vendor C's
estimates are $9,000 to $26,000 lower than costs based on
Vendor A's estimates.
B.2.1  Unit Costs
      This section presents the installed capital and annualized
cost estimates for the two different sizes of packed-bed
scrubber/mesh-pad mist eliminator systems specified in the model
plants.
      B.2.1.1  Capital Costs.  Table B-ll presents the capital
costs for the two different sizes of packed-bed scrubber/mesh-pad
mist eliminator systems specified in the model plants.  As
indicated in Table B-ll, Unit A represents a design gas flow rate
of 340 m3/min (12,000 ft3/min), and Unit B represents a design
gas flow rate of 990 m3/min  (35,000 ft3/min).  The capital costs
include the purchase cost of the control device and auxiliaries
such as inlet and outlet transition zones, exhaust fans and
                               B-10

-------
motors, recirculation tank, recirculation pump and motor, packing
material, mesh pads, 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 assumption that no major structural modifications
are necessary.  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.3  The startup cost is assumed
to be 1 percent of the purchased equipment cost.3
      B.2.1.2  Annualized Costs.  Table B-12 presents the
annualized costs for the two different sizes of packed-bed
scrubber/mesh-pad mist eliminator systems specified in the model
plants.  The annualized costs include direct operating costs such
as utilities; operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor and
materials; packing material and 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 packed-bed scrubber/mesh-pad mist
eliminator system.  The annual electrical cost results from the
additional horsepower needed to operate the fan motor 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 = [(0.746 kW/hp)(hp)f(t)](c) +
    [(
where,
(0.746  kW/hp)(hp)p(t)J (c)
        kW = kilowatt
     (hp)f = incremental horsepower of fan motor
     (hp)   = horsepower requirement of pump motor
         t = operating time, hr/yr
         c = electrical cost, $0.046l/kWh6
                               B-ll

-------
      Water consumption costs were calculated based on the
assumption that scrubber water is 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.  The water costs were calculated using the following
equation:

      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)
      t = operating time,  hr/yr
      c = water cost,  $0.20/1,000 L ($0.77/1,000 gal)7

      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 and a labor rate of $8.37/hour.1'2  Based on
vendor estimates, the operator labor is independent of both the
control device size and the number of operating hours per day
because the amount of time required to inspect and startup the
control device is not a function of its size or how long it
operates.  The supervisor labor cost is assumed to be 15 percent
of the operator labor cost.3
      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/hour.lf2  Based on vendor estimates, the
maintenance labor is independent of the control device size.  The
amount of labor does not vary according to the size of the
control device because the amount of time to repair damaged parts
(spray nozzles, water pumps, etc.) is independent of the size of
those parts for these systems.  The annual cost of maintenance
                               B-12

-------
materials is assumed to be 100 percent of the maintenance labor
cost.3
      The costs of replacement packing and mesh pad materials
were included in the annualized costs because the life expectancy
of these materials is less than the life expectancy of the
control device.  The life expectancy of the packing is 10 years
and the replacement cost of the packing material is $640/m3
($18/ft3).   The life expectancy of the mesh pads is 5 years and
replacement costs are $9,700 for the 12,000 ft3/min unit and
$15,500 for the 35,000 ft3/min unit.4  Annualized packing and
mesh pad replacement costs include the replacement costs as well
as the disposal and transportation costs associated with the used
materials.   The replacement costs of the packing for the packed-
bed scrubber were calculated based on the following equation:

      Replacement costs,  $/yr = [(N)(C)(V)(CRFp)]
where:
        N = number of beds per unit
        C = cost of packing, $/m3 ($/ft3)
        V = volume of packing in each bed, m    (ft )
     CRFp = capital recovery factor of 0.163, based on an
            interest rate of 10 percent and a depreciable life of
            10 years for the packing

The replacement costs of the mesh pads were calculated using the
following equation:

      Replacement costs,  $/yr = [(N)(C)(CRFm)]
where:
        N = number of mesh pads
        C = cost of each mesh pad,  $/pad
     CRFm = capital recovery factor of 0.264, based on an
            interest rate of 10 percent and a depreciable life of
            5 years for the mesh pads
                               B-13

-------
      The disposal and transportation costs for the used packing
and mesh pad materials were calculated as follows:

      Disposal and transportation costs, $/yr =
      t (N) (dc + tc) (CRF) ]
where :
        N = number of 55 -gal drums,  V/Vd, rounded to the next
            higher whole number
        V = volume of packing or mesh pad material disposed for
            each control device assuming 50 percent compaction,
            m3 (ft3)
       Vd = volume of 55-gal drum, 0.21 m3  (7.35 ft3)
       dc = disposal cost, $50.00 + 10 percent tax/drum5
       tc = transportation cost, $40 . 00/drum5
     CRFp = capital recovery factor of 0.163 for scrubber
            packing,  based on an interest rate of 10 percent and
            a depreciable life of 10 years
     CRFm = capital recovery factor of 0.264 for mesh pads, based
            on an interest rate of 10 percent and a depreciable
            life of 5 years

      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.3  Property taxes,
insurance, and administration were collectively assumed to be
4 percent of the total capital cost.3
      Capital recovery costs associated with the packed-bed
scrubber/mesh -pad unit(s), which are the costs of capital spread
over the depreciable life of the control device, were calculated
using the following equation:
      CRC =  [TCC] [(i
where,
     CRC = capital recovery cost, $/yr
                               B-14

-------
     TCC = total capital cost of control device(s), $
       i = annual interest rate, 10 percent
       n = depreciable life, 20 yr

B.2.2.  Model Plant Costs
      This section presents the installed capital and annualized
costs of applying packed-bed scrubber/mesh-pad mist eliminator
systems to model small, medium, and large hard chromium plating
plants.  Model plant costs were compiled for new and existing
plants.  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.

      B.2.2.1  New Facility Costs
      B.2.2.l.l.  Model plant capital costs.  Table B-13 presents
the purchased equipment, installation, startup, and total capital
costs of packed-bed scrubber/mesh-pad mist eliminator systems for
the hard chromium plating model plants.  The capital cost
estimates were compiled from Table B-ll as described below.

          Small model plant = Column A costs
          Medium model plant = Column B costs
          Large model plant = 2 (Column B costs)

     B.2.2.1.2.  Model plant annualized control costs.   The
annualized costs for the model plants are presented in
Table B-14.   The annualized cost estimates, with the exception of
the labor requirements, indirect costs, and chromic acid recovery
credits,  were compiled from Table B-12 as described below.

          Small model plant = Column A costs
          Medium model plant = Column E^ costs
                               B-15

-------
          Large model plant = 2  (Column B2  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  model new large
hard chromium plating plant, which requires a total of two
control devices, the operator and maintenance labor requirement
was calculated as follows:

     Operator and maintenance labor, $/yr = 3,010  +
(0.3) (3,010) = $3,910  [instead of  (2) (3,010) =  $6,020]

     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 B-12.
     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 model new large hard  chromium
plating plant, the indirect costs were calculated  as  follows:

                              overhead           taxes,  ins., adm
Indirect costs,  $/yr = 0.60[(1.3) ($3,010) + 2($1,800)] +  [0.04 ($195,600)]
  = $4,510 + $7,820 = $12,330

     The chromic acid recovery credits are  calculated based on
the estimated removal efficiency for the packed-bed
scrubber/mesh-pad mist eliminator system and 100 percent  recovery
                               B-16

-------
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)
         c = cost of chromic acid  (Cr03), $3.28/kg  ($1.49/lb)8

     The chromic acid recovery credits shown in Tables B-14
and B-15 are based on a control efficiency of 99.8 percent.
     B.2.2.2  Existing Facility Costs.  The retrofit costs for
each model plant include costs for ductwork modifications and for
removal and disposal of existing control devices.  Actual
retrofit costs will vary and depend on .the particular facility,
its 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 here are
believed to be representative of expenditures that existing
facilities would incur.
     B.2.2.2.1  Model plant retrofit capital costs.  Based on
information from control device vendors of scrubbers and mist
eliminators (chevron-blade and mesh-pad), the average increase in
the total capital cost to retrofit an existing facility was
25 percent.13  Therefore, the estimated retrofit capital costs of
packed-bed scrubber/mesh-pad mist eliminator systems for the
model small, medium, and large plants are $72,600, $122,200, and
$244,500, respectively.
     B.2.2.2.2  Model plant retrofit annualized costs.  Total
annualized retrofit costs of packed-bed scrubber/mesh-pad mist
eliminator systems for each model hard chromium plating plant are
                               B-17

-------
shown in Table B-15.  The annualized retrofit costs are the same
as the annualized costs of a new control system except for the
capital recovery costs and indirect costs,  because these costs
are a function of the installed capital cost.  Capital recovery
costs for a retrofit situation are higher than those for new
systems because the installed capital costs for retrofit control
systems are 25 percent higher than those for new systems.
Indirect costs include overhead, taxes, insurance, and
administration.  Taxes, insurance, and administration are based
on 4 percent of the capital costs; thus, these costs are also
higher for retrofit than for new facilities.
B.3  FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATOR
     Cost data for fiber-bed mist eliminators were obtained from
two vendors.  Table B-16 presents capital cost estimates provided
by these vendors.  Estimates of total installed capital costs
were obtained for the two different sizes of fiber-bed mist
eliminators specified in the model plants from CECO Filters, Inc.
(CECO).11  CECO also provided information on operating parameters
(e.g., fan motor horsepower requirements, water consumption
rates, operator and maintenance hours, and the life expectancy of
the control device and fiber elements) that were used to
calculate annualized costs.11'1   The second vendor, Monsanto
Enviro-Chem (Monsanto), also provided cost data on fiber-bed mist
eliminators.15  However, because Monsanto only sells the fiber--
bed mist eliminators and is not involved in the installations,
incomplete cost information was obtained.  Therefore, the cost
estimates provided here are based on CECO estimates only since
they were comparable to the capital cost estimates that were
provided by Monsanto.
B.3.1  Unit Costs
     This section presents the installed capital and annualized
cost estimates for the two different sizes of fiber-bed mist
eliminators specified in the model plants.
     B.3.1.1  Capital Costs.  Table B-17 presents capital cost
estimates for the two different sizes of fiber-bed mist
                               B-18

-------
eliminators specified in the model plants.  As indicated in
Table B-17, Unit A represents a design gas flow rate of
340 m3/min  (12,000 ft3/min) and Unit B represents a design gas
flow rate of 990 m3/min  (35,000 ft3/min).  The capital costs for
fiber-bed mist eliminators 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; modification costs associated with the
modification of the existing ventilation system; indirect costs
for erection, engineering services, contractor fees, and
contingencies; and startup costs.  Installation costs are based
on the assumption that no major structural modifications are
necessary.  Modifications to the existing ventilation system will
be required because fiber-bed mist eliminators must be installed
on the ground beside the plating shop instead of on the roof due
to the height and weight of the units.  The cost to modify the
existing ductwork is assumed to be 3 percent of the total
purchased equipment cost, which is based on the ductwork cost for
the original ventilation system.  The purchased equipment cost
also includes taxes and freight costs, which are assumed to be
3 and 5 percent of the base equipment costs, respectively.3  The
startup cost is assumed to be l percent of the purchase equipment
cost.3
     B.3.1.2  Annualized Costs.  Table B-18 presents annualized
costs for fiber-bed mist eliminators.  The annualized costs
include direct operating costs such as utilities; operator,
supervisor, and maintenance labor and materials; fiber element
replacement costs; 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 fiber-bed mist eliminators.  The annual
electrical cost attributable to pollution control results from
the additional fan horsepower needed to overcome the pressure
                               B-19

-------
drop added to the ventilation system by the control device.  The
incremental fan electrical costs were calculated using the
following equation:

                                0.746 kW
       Electrical cost, $/yr =  [(	)(hp)(t)](c)
                                    hp
where:
          kW = kilowatt
          hp = incremental horsepower of fan motor
           t = operating time, hr/yr
           c = electrical cost, $0.0461 per kWh6

     For example, the fiber-bed mist eliminator that is sized for
an exhaust gas flow rate of 340 actual m3/min  (12,000 actual
ft3/min) requires an additional 30 hp to operate the fan, and the
fiber-bed mist eliminator operates 2,000 hr/yr.  Therefore, the
annual  electrical cost to operate the fan is:
        0.746 kW                     $0.0461
        [	] [30 hp] [2,000 hr/yr] [	]  = $2,060/yr
           hp                          kWh
     Water consumption costs are associated with the washdown of
the prefilter located before the mist eliminator and the fiber
elements in the fiber-bed mist eliminator.  For purposes of this
analysis, it was assumed that water for washdown is recycled to
the process.  Water costs are calculated using the following
equation:

      Water cost, $/yr =  [(N)(S)(FRFB)(tFB)+(FRpF)(60)(tpp)](C)
where:
          N = No. of washdowns per 8-hr shifts
          S = No. of 8-hr shifts per yr
       FRFB = water flow rate for fiber-bed section, L/min
              (gal/min)
        tpB = duration of washdown, min

                               B-20

-------
       FRpF = water flow rate for prefilter, L/min  (gal/min)
        tpp = operating time per year, hr/yr
          C = water cost, $0.20/1,000 L  ($0.77/1,000 gal)7

      For example, for the fiber-bed mist eliminator used in the
example above, the fiber elements are washed down once every
8 hours at a water flow rate of 2.6 L/min (0.7 gal/min) for
60 minutes, and the prefilter is sprayed continuously with water
at a rate of 5.3 L/min (1.4 gal/min).  The fiber-bed mist
eliminator operates 2,000 hr/yr.  Therefore, the annual water
cost for this unit is:
      [(1)(250)  (0.7 gal/min) (60 min) + (1.4 gal/min) (60 min/h)
(2,000 h/yr)]  ($0.77/gal) = $140/yr
      The total annual cost of utilities for the mist eliminator
is equal to the sum of the electrical and water costs, which is
$2,200/yr.
      The cost of replacement fiber material was included in the
annualized costs because the life expectancy of the fiber
material is less than the life expectancy of the control device.
The life expectancy of the fiber material is 5 years and the
replacement cost of each fiber element is $3,000.    Annualized
fiber material replacement costs include the replacement cost of
the fiber material and the transportation and disposal costs
associated with the used fiber material.  The replacement costs
of the fiber material were calculated based on the following
equation:

      Replacement costs,  $/yr = [(N)(C)](CRF)
where:
        N = No.  of fiber elements per unit11
        C = cost of fiber material, $3,000/element11
      CRF = capital recovery factor of 0.264, based on an
            interest rate of 10 percent and a depreciable life of
            5  years for the fiber elements

                              B-21

-------
      The transportation and disposal costs for the fiber
material were calculated based on the following equation:

      Disposal and transportation cost,  $/yr = [(N)(dc)  +
(N)(tc)] (CRF)
where:
        N = No. of 55-gal drums,  V/Vd,  rounded up to the nearest
            whole number
        V = volume of fiber material disposed for each control
            device compacted by 50 percent, m3 (ft3)
       Vd = volume of 55-gal drum, 0.21 m3 (7.35 ft3)
       dc = disposal cost,  $50.00/drum (plus 10 percent tax)5
       tc = transportation cost,  $40.00/drum5
      CRF = capital recovery factor of 0.264, based on an
            interest rate of 10 percent and a depreciable life of
            5 years for the fiber 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 2,000 hours of control device operation and a labor
rate of $8.37/hour.1  The supervision labor cost is assumed to be
15 percent of the operator labor cost.
      The annual cost of maintenance labor for each control
device is based on vendor estimates per 2,000 hours of control
                                                            T O
device operation and a maintenance labor rate of $9.21/hour.  '
The annual cost of materials is assumed to be 100 percent of  the
maintenance labor cost.3
      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
plus any material costs.3  Property taxes, insurance,  and
administration were assumed to be 4 percent of the total capital
cost.3
                               B-22

-------
      Capital recovery costs, which are the costs of capital
spread over the depreciable life of the control device, were
calculated using the following equation:3
      CRC =  [TCC] [ (i
where :
      CRC = capital recovery costs, $/yr
      TCC = total capital cost, $
        i = annual interest rate, 10 percent
        n = depreciable life of unit, 20 years
B.3.2  Model Plant Costs
      This section presents estimates of installed capital and
annualized costs of applying fiber-bed mist eliminators to small,
medium, and large hard chromium plating plants.  Model plant
costs were compiled for new and existing plants.  The capital
costs for ventilation hoods and ductwork are 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.
      B.3.2.1  New Facility Costs
      B.3.2. l.l  Model plant capital costs.  Table B-19 presents
the purchased equipment, installation, modification, startup, and
total capital costs of fiber-bed mist eliminators for the hard
chromium plating model plants.  The capital cost estimates for
the small and medium model plants are the same as the costs
presented in Columns A and B,  respectively, of Table B-17.  The
capital cost estimates for the large model plant are equal to two
times the cost presented in Column B of
Table B-17.
      B . 3 . 2 . 1 . 2 .  Model plant annualized control costs .  The
annualized costs associated with the use of fiber-bed mist
eliminators for the hard chromium plating model plants are
presented in Table B-20.  The annualized cost estimates, with the
exception of the labor requirements and indirect costs for the
                               B-23

-------
large model plant, were compiled from Table B-18 as follows:
(1) the annualized costs for the small and medium model plants
are the same as those presented in Columns A and B-j^ respectively;
and (2) the large model plant costs are equal to two times the
costs presented in Column B2.
      The operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor
requirements for the large model plant were calculated based on
the assumption that the labor required to operate 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.  Therefore, the labor cost for
the large model plant, which operates two control devices, was
calculated as follows:

    Operator and maintenance labor, $/yr = (1.3) ($7,220) +
 (1.3)  ($2,650) = $12,800

      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 the additional control device
at the large model plant, and can be computed directly from
Table B-18 as described above.
      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.  Therefore, for the
large model plant, the indirect costs were calculated as follows:
                               B-24

-------
      Indirect costs, $/yr = 0.6  [1.3(9,870) + 2  (2,650)]
      + 0.04  [2  (234,600)] = $10,880 + $18,800 = $29,600/yr

      The chromic acid recovery credits are calculated based on
the estimated removal efficiency for fiber-bed mist eliminators
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, 99.8 percent
     1.923 = ratio of chromic acid molecular weight  (100) to
             hexavalent chromium molecular weight (52)
         C = cost of chromic acid  (Cr03),  $3.28/kg  ($1.59/lb)8
      B.3.2.2  Existing Facilities Costs.   The retrofit costs for
each model plant include costs for ductwork modifications and for
the removal and disposal of existing control devices.  Actual
retrofit costs will vary and depend on the particular facility,
its 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 here are
believed to be representative of expenditures that existing
facilities would incur.
      B.3.2.2.1  Model plant retrofit capital costs.  Based on
information from control device vendors of scrubbers and mist
eliminators (chevron-blade and mesh-pad),  the average increase in
the total capital cost to retrofit an existing facility was
25 percent.1-^  This corresponds to an 8 percent increase in the
total capital cost for fiber-bed mist eliminators.  Therefore, a
10 percent increase in the total capital cost for fiber-bed mist
eliminators was used for calculating retrofit costs for the model
plants.  The estimated retrofit capital costs of fiber-bed mist
                               B-25

-------
eliminators for the small, medium, and large model plants are
$129,400, $258,100, and $516,100, respectively.
      B.3.2.2.2  Model plant retrofit annualized costs.  Total
annualized retrofit costs of fiber-bed mist eliminators for each
hard chromium plating model plant are shown in Table B-21.  The
annualized retrofit costs are the same as the annualized costs of
a new control system except for the capital recovery costs and
indirect costs because these costs are a function of the
installed capital cost.  Capital recovery costs for a retrofit
situation are higher because the installed capital costs for
retrofit control systems are 10 percent higher than those for new
systems.  Indirect costs include overhead, taxes, insurance, and
administration.  Taxes, insurance, and administration are based
on 4 percent of the capital costs; thus, these costs are also
higher for retrofit than for new facilities.
                               B-26

-------
                •12'-
                 -A—»-•	B-
                                              Control
                                              Device
                                B
Duct Component
Specification

Gas flow rate, cfm
Duct diameter, in.
Duct length, ft
No. of 30 degree entries
No. of one step tapers
No. of 90 degree elbows
Duct

A
2.625
12
12
2
0
0
Section

B
5.250
18
27
3
2
1
Location

C
• 10.500
24
20
0
1
1
Figure B-l.   Plan view and ductwork  specifications for the  small
              hard chromium plating model plants.
                              B-27

-------


-5


\ \
tl
UJ
i
Q
i
0

1 '
j
t t
—
S

V
J

1
J
CVJ I
' f n
i
II
S
i
1




J

L



'-

0
M





_,

_

X
J o
(8
1 U.
w
73
Q
LU
Q

0


ffl

<

Ic
2 =
Ij
P

CM CM
in T
CM"
CO
£ "
03
- 0 O
T-

| | |
$ "" 8
«s & a s>
* -9? M &
S -a 5 «
?o e o
000
£ 0 0 0
£ ! ! !
                                                 §
                                                 M
                                                 £!
                                                 O

                                                 •O

                                                 '^
                                                 x:
                                                 rt
                                                 •0

                                                 (0
                                                 •H
                                                 •O
                                                 a)
                                                  0)
                                                 x:
                                                 4J
                                                  W

                                                  O
                                                  O
                                                 •H
                                                  O
                                                  0)
                                                  ft
                                                  S
                                                  -p
                                                  O

                                                  •a

                                                  •o  •
                                                  c  w
                                                  10 -P
                                                  0) rH
                                                 •H  O<

                                                    rH
                                                  C  (V

                                                 5*8
                                                 CU  E
                                                  CM

                                                  a

                                                  0)
                                                  h

                                                  tr
                                                  •H
B-28

-------
00
g
3
T

a
J
D
0
O
H
EH
3

Cb
o
cv?
M ELECT]
D
M
S
o
erf
ffi
U

Q
§

Cd
X
EH
Drf
O
Cfl
erf
w
EH
W
<
Sr
S

CQ
W







u
1


.8
C/5

g

SI
£
3
1
S










15

on












2
|
"«3
•§




^O
0
Q X
- O NO
NO 00 —







8 x
- O c^
m r- -t








^0

§x
. o 9
fs r- in










1
*i *
ill i
a S 5
- « *t 2
J 1^1
BE -S 5 "-
e ** 3 E ,_
1 S S - ^
% 2 S a 3
6. « -^
q
oo \o
— rn

~ q
\c rj
— f! ^









£~
E
/-^
T3
sT
s»^
a S
5 0
2 '«
•8 |.
o '-5
II

§^^ S }C g
R 00* U^"
^r ^O ™~ ^ fH

CD **"* DO ^^
in — >n Ji ON
© © © .M ®
fS 1- fS fS U-  c S "e"
O. '3 U O S '3
^^ -o o c _E
g^ 1 .§ 0<^
Q C Q *rt C8 C
5 ~i >»- *o *s -f
c E x e u c
4> O O N *"
> Z U tfj


o"
in

f£
Q
«-







1








g-

^
O








E
3
'§
|
u
_0 u
T3 >.
^
u
Uncontrolled h
emission rate
B-29

-------
       TABLE  B-2.    ANNUAL  OPERATING  COST  FACTORS FOR MESH-PAD MIST
       ELIMINATORS, PACKED-BED SCRUBBER/MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEMS,
                              AND FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATORS
 Cost categories
Cost factors
 Direct operating costs

   1.  Operating labor
      a. Operator*'^
      b. Supervisor

   2.  Maintenance
      a. Labor1'3
      b. Materials4

   3.  Replacement parts, packing material

   4.  Replacement parts, mesh pads or fiber
       material

   5.  Transportation and disposal of used packing
      material and mesh pads^

   6.  Utilities
      a. Electricity
      b. Water7

 Indirect operating costs

   7.  Overhead3

   8.  Property  tax3

   9.  Insurance

   10. Administration-^

   11. Capital recovery'
 Credits
                      o
   Chromic acid recovery
$8.37/man-hr
15 percent of la


$9.21/hr
100 percent of 2a

16.3 percent of the total replacement cost4

26.4 percent of the total replacement cost"


$50/drum disposal (plus 10 percent tax)
$40/drum transportation


$0.0461/kWh
$0.7771,000 gal
60 percent of la +  Ib -I- 2a + 2b

1 percent of capital  cost

1 percent of capita]  cost

2 percent of capital  cost

11.7 percent of capital cost of packed-bed
scrubber/mesh-pad mist eliminator system0


$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 a mesh-pad life of 5 years.
cBased on an interest rate of 10 percent and an equipment life of 20 years.
                                              B-30

-------
CO
(X
0
EH
<
Z
H
S
H
j
w
H
CO
H
S

9
cu
1
EC
CO
w
S
e;
o
b
CO
u
u
r*j
Ct
D

0}
1
Q
EH
CO
o
u
Q
Cd
N
H
J
<
B
g
<
p
§
-l
CO
_J
OH
MIST ELIMINATO


fr
1
K
CO
S
rv*
K

PACKED -BED SCRUBE






u.;
u
a:










ii
"«
O






Source









o
»^
o
U

f*sj
0 -

Os •*" —







Os
00
uii
^^ i
22«.
0 > U








t_
ipital Costs
Mesh-pad mist eliminator
Extended packed-bed scrubbei
Fiber-bed mist eliminator
mualized Costs
U — ° c4 r»i  c
< 5
Q_
Department of Energy
American Water Works
Ashland Chemical Com]









•o
t 1
1 | 1 1
UJ & U J
" rs» r" -
_o
12
S
55
1
2
''o
3
03
S
CO









a. Operator




f>
,
fS
— "



00
2

b
ctf
1
•n
oo"
00
Os
cfl
S)
3
<






EPA/OAQPS/EAB








u
b. Supervisor and maintenanc






•A









Os
00
Os
'C
Q.
<



C
1
U
Chemical Waste Managi


•o
g
W)
1^
1.
T3
"o
t^.
Transportation and disposal o
mesh pads
t-^






c^








t^
00
Os
£>
(8
*S
•LJ
£






EPA/OAQPS/EAB
e
_o
ts
t«
'is

"O
cS
V
U
c
a
Overhead, property tax, insur
00






fn








( —
1
b
«
_C
1






EPA/OAQPS/EAB









Capital recovery
Os


B-31

-------
   TABLE B-4.  CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES PROVIDED BY VENDOR  C  FOR
            MIST ELIMINATORS WITH MESH PADS  IN SERIES
                     (SEPTEMBER 1990 DOLLARS)a


                                      Airflow, n\3/min  (ft3/min)
Cost
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
component
Basic mist eliminator cost
Inlet and outlet transition
Fan and motor
Stack
Base equipment
Installation
Total capital cost
340 (12,000)
15,700
720
5,430
1,430
23,280
2,660
25,940
990 (35,000)
38,850
2,000
22,180
2,340
65,370
2,980
68,340
aAll costs were rounded to the nearest  $10.
                               B-32

-------
     TABLE B-5.   CAPITAL  COST ESTIMATES  OF  MIST ELIMINATORS  WITH
                MESH  PADS  IN SERIES  (November  1988 Dollars)
Mesh-pad mist eliminator size

Control device parameters
Design gas flow rate, nr/min (fr/min)a
Pressure drop, kPa (in. w.c.)
Fan static pressure, kPa (in. w.c.)"
Fan motor size, hp (kW)c
Cost data
1 . Basic mesh-pad mist eliminator
2. Inlet and outlet transitions
3. Fan and motor
4. Stack
5. Base equipment"
6. Sales taxes and freight6
7. Total purchased equipment
8. Installation^
9. Startup"
10. Total capital cost1
A

340(12,000)
1.4(5.5)
1.4(5.5)
25 (18)

15,200
800
5,200
1.400
22,600
1.810
24,410
2,570
240
27,200
B

990 (35,000)
1.4(5.5)
1.4(5.5)
100 (73)

37,500
2,000
21,400
2.300
63,200
5.060
68,260
2,870
680
71,800
     stream temperature is 27°C (80°F), gas stream moisture content is 2 percent, and altitude is 305 m
  (1,000ft).
 Static pressures are based on the ventilation specifications in Figures 1 and 2 and the pressure drop across the
  control device.
cVendor C provided motor sizes based on the static pressures and gas flow rates specified above.
dSum of 1  through 4.
eSales taxes and freight costs are 3 and 5 percent, respectively, of base equipment costs.
'Sum of 5 and 6.
^Includes all costs associated with installing instrumentation, electrical components, and piping, erection and
  contingencies; and fee.  Assumes that the installation requires no major structural modifications.
"One percent of total purchased equipment cost.
'Sum of 7,  8, and 9.  Costs were rounded to nearest $100.
                                             B-33

-------
     TABLE  B-6.   ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COSTS  OF MIST ELIMINATORS
                             WITH MESH  PADS  IN SERIES
                               (November  1988  Dollars)


Control device parameters
Design gas flow rate, m /min (fr/min)
Operating hours, hr/yr
Incremental fan motor size, hp (kW)° c
Total water consumption per year, gal
Maintenance hours, hr/yr
Operator labor hours, hr/yr"
Life expectancy of unit, yrb
Life expectancy of pad material, yr
Cost datad
1. Utilities
2. Operator, supervisor, and maintenance
3. Maintenance materials
4. Mesh-pad replacement6
5. Indirect costs
6. Capital recovery
7. Total annualized costs^
Mesh -pad
A

340 (12,000)
2,000
15(11)
48,800
150
62.5
10
5

1,070
1,980
1,380
1,780
3,110
4,430
13,800
mist eliminator size
B,a

990 (35,000)
3,500
60(44)
85,470
262.5
62.5
10
5

7,290
3,020
2,420
4,790
6,130
11,700
35,400

R *
K1

990 (35,000)
6,000
60 (44)
146,280
450
62.5
10
5

12,490
4,740
4,140
4,790
8,200
11,700
46,100
aB. is based on a 990 m^/min (35,000 fr/min) unit operating 3.500 h/yr; I$2 is based on the same size unit
 operating at 6,000 h/yr.
 Value of parameter provided by vendor.
cThe incremental fan size is the additional horsepower required to operate the control device over the
 horsepower  required to operate the ventilation system.
^Annualized costs were calculated from the control device parameters provided by the vendor and the operating
 hours specified above.  All costs are rounded to the nearest $10.
Includes cost of mesh pad replacement and transportation and disposal of the used mesh pads with 50 percent
 compaction.
^Includes overhead, property tax, insurance, and administration.
SSum of 1 through 6. Numbers may not add exactly due to independent rounding. Cost data were rounded to
 nearest $100.
                                            B-34

-------
       TABLE  B-7.   ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS  OF MESH-PAD MIST
       ELIMINATOR UNITS FOR NEW AND EXISTING HARD CHROMIUM
          PLATING MODEL PLANTSa  (November 1988 Dollars)
                                   Model plant size"
                           Small
          Medium
           Large
Cost data

Total purchased
equipment  (TPE)

Installation

Startup  (1 percent of
TPE)

Total capital cost
(new)c

Total capital costd
24,400


 2,600

   200


27,200


34,000
68,300


 2,900

   700


71,800


89,800
136,500


  5,700

  1.400


143,600


179,500
     cost data were rounded to the nearest $100.
^Small model plant costs are based on a unit with a 340 rrr/min
 (12,000 ft3/min) gas flow rate; medium model plant costs are
 based on a unit with a 990 m3/min (35,000 ft3/min) gas flow
 rate; large model plant costs are two times medium model plant
 costs.
^Numbers may not add exactly due to independent rounding.
"Based on a 25 percent increase in total capital cost to retrofit
 an existing facility.
                               B-35

-------
     TABLE B-8.  ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COSTS OF MESH-PAD MIST
         ELIMINATOR UNITS FOR NEW HARD CHROMIUM PLATING
              MODEL PLANTSa (November 1988 Dollars)

Cos t_ data
Utilities
Operator and maintenance
labor0
Maintenance materials
Mesh-pad replacementd
Indirect costs6
Capital recovery
Annualized cost
Chromic acid recovery^
Net annualized cost^
Model
Small

1,100
2,000
1,400
1,800
3,100
4.400
13,800
(300)
13,500
plant size'3
Medium

7,300
3,000
2,400
4,800
6,100
11.700
35,400
(2.600)
32,800

Large

25,000
6,200
8,300
9,600
14,400
23.400
86,800
(10.100)
76,700
aAll costs were rounded to the nearest $100.
^Small model plant costs are based on a unit with a 340 nr/min
 (12,000 ft3/min)  gas flow rate; medium model plant costs are
 based on a unit with a 990 m3/min (35,000 ft3/min) gas flow
 rate; large model plant costs  (with the exception of operator
 and maintenance labor and indirect costs) are equal to two times
 medium model plant costs.
clncludes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor.
^Includes costs of mesh pad replacement and transportation and
 disposal of old mesh pads with 50 percent compaction.
elncludes overhead, property taxes, insurance, and
 administration.
fChromic acid recovery credit is based on a control efficiency of
 99.8 percent.
^Numbers may not add exactly due to independent rounding.
                               B-36

-------
        TABLE  B-9.   ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED  COSTS  OF MESH-PAD
         MIST  ELIMINATOR UNITS FOR EXISTING HARD  CHROMIUM
          PLATING MODEL PLANTSa  (November 1988 Dollars)


Cost data
Utilities
Operator and maintenance
labor0
Maintenance materials
Mesh-pad replacement"
Indirect costs6
Capital recovery
Annualized cost
Chromic acid recovery
Net annualized cost^
Model
Small
1,100
2,000
1,400
1,800
3,400
5,500
15,200
(300)
14,900
plant size*3
Medium
7,300
3,000
2,400
4,800
6,900
14.600
39,000
(2,600)
36,400

Large
25,000
6,200
8,300
9,600
15,900
29.300
94,200
(10.100)
84,100
aAll costs were rounded to the nearest $100.
^Small model plant costs are based on a unit with a 340 nrVmin
 (12,000 ft3/min)  gas flow rate; medium model plant costs are
 based on a unit with a 990 rrr/min (35,000 ft3/min) gas flow
 rate; large model plant costs  (with the exception of operator
 and maintenance labor and indirect costs) are equal to two times
 medium model plant costs.
clncludes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor.
"Includes costs of mesh pad replacement and transportation and
 disposal of old mesh pads with 50 percent compaction.
elncludes overhead, property taxes, insurance, and
 administration.
fChromic acid recovery credit is based on a control efficiency of
 99.8 percent.
^Numbers may not add exactly due to independent rounding.
                               B-37

-------







Q
W
CQ
Qrfl
S "- •
u £
n ftJ
tH
,. - j
?^ o
Ed Q
_ ^^
CT\
§ 'H
3 ^
j d)
o
*r3
B! ^
§ ft
g Q)
W M
>
S^ "
£ S
H
Q £
pq tH
Q £2
> W
§g
1:14 E-i
CO £
w g
E-i g

3 H

m
FH ^^
w E-i
* CO
co E
8 9
^
j ^
KjJ '
E-I ^
S w
rtl ^
CJ ^^
w
• ^*
o £9
i~i tc
t p^
CQ
CO
u
CQ
3
H
















^^ ^
c
•H
g
^^.
m
AJ
U-l

C
-H
g

^g
-
0
II 1
MH
-H

~"













































U
i_l
o
•o
c
CD
















^
«<
>-i
O
0)
































^^
o
o
o
«
in
m
"*~*

o
CTl


. — ^
O
O
o
CN
H

O
m




o
o
o
in
m


o
CTl



o
o

1



o

m











OJ
a
Q)
a
o

1
u

4J
CQ
O
CJ
OOOO OOOO
^«O 0^ f^O C^ ^* C"1** 00 lO
r** c^ ^^ o^ PO ^o o*\ vo
»•»•»«. *. «. *l *
V,Q ^ v^ ^O , i 4-) 4-J fNj ^X) CN O^
rO rH MJ W CQ \Q v^O
^ U U
U

^ -H -H
§ m W
^ J3 X5
.5 C G
O O OO -H-HOOOO
(N O CO 00 ;T» T3 *O ^* ^ LT) O
•* - •• •> J.J d) Q) •. •> *. •*
^ t— J LO CO ^ t3 T3 rH V£ CN C^
rH ^ 3 3 CN CN
r^^ , j
« c c
H H H




O O OOO OOOOOO
00 O OOO OOOOOOCO
00 H W3CNm ^OU)OOO
CN CN r~-HCN ^U)CNCTiin«*
CO rH r-l C** rH CTl







O O OOO OOOOOO
o o ooo oooooo
ro ao moo^D COO^CNOCN
U) O H HOHmCIVO
rH rH rH ^ rH in










J_l JU
OJ X ft -U
£) c g 01
£1 j-> CQ as 3 1-1 O
30JO) 4JftrC £1 U
T3 >-l rH C -H 4J
CDUaJOVnCC S-( fl r-l
T3 CQ3NOOO CD CDCr(5
C O 4J-H-H 4J gO4J
CDT3 GOJ-Ji-J rfl ft-H-H
ij rt) rrt O g CTJ fti M g CQ *rH | 1 Oi
X£)C-H rHr-HO T3 30Scd
0 ' rci -tJ *O 3 3 4-J cji nS D1 r-H u
'O "H el u u o c2 ft CD rH
UCD4JCQ CTj M 5-lg *H ^ CC rH
•H ,V CD G ~rH *rH J^ 4^ CJ CD 4-) rd
CQUrHfrJCCJO'OCJCQCC)CQCQ4J
rrip.1— ij_)rijfVifYJrrlQj]5^fflpqMrH


H CN m ^ in u)r>cocnOH
H tH

























Cn
-H
C
3
0
fH

4J
C!
CD
T3
• C
O CD
•W- Q)
T3
jj r^
CQ -H
CD
±4 O

1U 4-J
CD
C CD
CD T3
X!
O 4J
4J U
rt
T3 X
CD CD
•o
3 T5
O ft!
r-l
4J
CD O
rH C
cu
^ r*!
rd
CQ g
CQ CQ
0 rH
U CD
rH "§
•H 3
rcf'x?
B-38

-------
            TABLE  B-ll.   CAPITAL COST  ESTIMATES  OF  PACKED-BED
                   SCRUBBER/MESH-PAD  MIST ELIMINATOR  SYSTEM
                        (VENDOR  A)   (November  1988  Dollars)


Control device parameters
Design gas flow rate, m /min (fr /min)a
Pressure drop, kPa (in. w.c.)
Fan static pressure, kPa (in. w.c.)"
Fan motor size, hp (kW)c
Amount of packing, nr (ft3)
Amount of mesh pad material, nr (fr)
Cost data
1 . Basic extended packed-bed scrubber
2. Inlet and outlet transitions
3. Fan and motor
4. Recirculation tank
5. Recirculation pump and motor
6. Stack
7. Base equipment6
8. Sales taxes and freight'
9. Total purchased equipment^
10. Installation11
11. Startup'
12. Total capital cost)
Packed-bed scrubber/mesh-pad
A

340 (12,000)
1.7(6.8)
2.2 (8.8)
30 (22)
2.3 (80)
1 . 1 (40)

27,140
770
10,140
770
1,540
1.350
41,710
3.340
45,050
12,550
450
58,100
unit size
B

990 (35,000)
1.7 (6.8)
2.8 (11.3)
100 (75)
6.7 (236)
3.3(118)

51,450
2,030
17,000
1,160
2,220
2.510
76,370
6.110
82,480
14,480
820
97,800
*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 are based on the ventilation specifications in Figures 1 and 2 and the pressure drop across the control
  device.
cVendor A provided motor sizes based on the static pressures and gas flow rates specified above.
dAll costs are rounded to the nearest $10.
eSum of 1 through 6.
 Sales taxes and freight costs are 3 and 5 percent, respectively, of base equipment costs.
SSum of 7 and 8.
 Includes all costs associated with installing instrumentation,  electrical components, and piping, erection and contingencies;
  and fee.  Assumes that the installation  requires no major structural modifications.
'One percent of total purchased equipment cost.
JSum of 9,  10, and 11.  Costs were rounded to nearest $100.
                                              B-39

-------
   TABLE B-12.   ANNUALIZED  COSTS  OF PACKED-BED  SCRUBBER/MESH-PAD
      MIST  ELIMINATOR SYSTEM  (VENDOR A)   (November  1988  Dollars)


Control device parameters
Design gas flow rate, m /min (ft /min)
Operating hours, hr/yr
Incremental fan motor sire, hp (kW)° c
Volume of remote recirculation tank, L
(gal)b
Recirculation pump motor, hp (kW)°
Maintenance hours, hr/yr
Operator labor hours, hr/yr°
Life expectancy of unit, yr
Life expectancy of packing material, yr
Life expectancy of mesh pads, yr
Cost datad
1. Utilities
2. Operator, supervisor, and maintenance
3. Maintenance materials
4. Packing material replacement6
5. Mesh pad replacement6
6. Indirect costs
7. Capital recovery
8. Total annualized costsS
Packed-bed
A

340 (12,000)
2,000
20 (15)
760 (200)

3 (2.2)
50
125
20
10
5

1,640
1,670
460
330
2,720
3,600
6,860
17,300
scrubber/mesh-pad unit
B,a

990 (35,000)
3,500
60(44)
1,890(500)

7.5 (5.6)
110
125
20
10
5

8,310
2,260
1,050
950
4,430
5,900
11,540
34.400
size
B/

990 (35,000)
6,000
60 (44)
1,890(500)

7.5 (5.6)
195
125
20
10
5

14,260
3,010
1,800
950
4,430
6,800
11,540
42,800
aB, is based on a 990 m^/min (35,000 ft^/min) unit operating 3,500 h/yr; E-^ is based on the same size unit
 operating at 6,000 h/yr.
 Value of parameter provided by Vendor A.
cThe incremental fan size is the additional horsepower required to operate the control device over the
 horsepower required to operate the ventilation system.
^Annualized costs were calculated from the control device parameters provided by the vendor and the operating
 hours specified above.  All costs are rounded to the nearest $10.
deludes cost of replacement and transportation and disposal of the used packing and mesh pads with
 50 percent  compaction.
'Includes overhead, property tax, insurance, and administration.
SSum of 1 through 7.  Numbers may not add exactly due to independent rounding. Cost data were rounded to
 nearest $100.
                                            B-40

-------
   TABLE B-13.  ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS OF PACKED-BED SCRUBBER
    MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEMS FOR NEW AND EXISTING HARD
            CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL  PLANTS  (VENDOR A)a
                     (November 1988 Dollars)
                                   Model plant  size*3
                           Small
          Medium
            Large
Cost data

Total purchased
equipment  (TPE)

Installation

Startup  (1 percent of
TPE)

Total capital cost
(new)c

Total retrofit
capital costd
45,100


12,600

   500


58,100


72,600
 82,500


 14,500

    800


 97,800


122,200
165,000


 29,000

  1.600


195,600


244,500
aAll cost data were rounded to the nearest $100.
^Small model plant costs are based on a unit with a 340 m3/min
 (12,000 ft3/min) gas flow rate; medium model plant costs are
 based on a unit with a 990 m3/min  (35,000 ft3/min) gas flow
 rate; large model plant costs are two 'times medium model plant
 costs.
GNumbers may not add exactly due to independent rounding.
^Based on a 25 percent increase in total capital cost to retrofit
 an existing facility.
                               B-41

-------
      TABLE B-14.  ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COSTS OF PACKED-BED
        SCRUBBER/MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEMS FOR NEW
         HARD CHROMIUM  PLATING MODEL  PLANTS  (VENDOR A)a
                     (November 1988 Dollars)

Cost data
Utilities
Operator and maintenance
labor0
Maintenance materials
Packing material
replacement"
Mesh pad replacement
Indirect costs6
Capital recovery
Annualized cost^
Chromic acid recoveryf
Net annualized cost^
Model
Small
1,600
1,700
500
300
2,700
3,600
6.900
17,300
(300)
17,000
plant size"
Medium
8,300
2,300
1,100
1,000
4,400
6,000
11.500
34,400
(2.600)
31,800

Large
28,500
3,900
3,600
1,900
8,900
12,300
23.1.00
82,200
(10,100)
72,100
aAll cost data were rounded to the nearest $100.
bSmall model plant costs are based on a unit with a 340 m3/min
 (12,000 ft3/min) gas flow rate; medium model plant costs are
 based on a unit with a 990 m3/min (35,000 ft3/min) gas flow
 rate; large model plant costs  (with the exception of operator
 and maintenance labor and indirect costs) are equal to two times
 medium model plant costs.
clncludes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor.
"^Replacement costs include the cost associated with purchasing
 new material and transportation and disposal of old material
 with 50 percent compaction.
elncludes overhead, property taxes, insurance, and
 administration.
fChromic acid recovery credit is based on a control efficiency of
 99.8 percent.
^Numbers may not add exactly due to independent rounding.
                               B-42

-------
      TABLE B-15.  ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COSTS OF PACKED-BED
      SCRUBBER/MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEMS  FOR EXISTING
          HARD CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL PLANTS (VENDOR A)a
                      (November  1988 Dollars)

Cost data
Utilities
Operator and maintenance
labor0
Maintenance materials
Packing material
replacement
Mesh pad replacement^
Indirect costs6
Capital recovery
Annualized cost^
Chromic acid recovery
Net annualized cost^
Model
Small

1,600
1,700
500
300
2,700
4,200
19,600
(300)
19,300
plant size"
Medium

8,300
2,300
1,100
1,000
4,400
6,900
14.400
38,300
(2.600)
35,700

Large

28,500
3,900
3,600
1,900
8,900
14,300
28.900
90,100
(10.100)
80,000
f-All cost data were rounded to the nearest $100.
bSmall model plant costs are based on a unit with a 340 m3/min
 (12,000 ft3/min) gas flow rate; medium model plant costs are
 based on a unit with a 990 rrr/min  (35,000 ft3/min) gas flow
 rate; large model plant costs  (with the exception of operator
 and maintenance labor and indirect costs) are equal to two times
 medium model plant costs.
^Includes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor.
 Replacement costs include the cost associated with purchasing
 new material and transportation and disposal of old material
 with 50 percent compaction.
elncludes overhead, property taxes, insurance, and
 administration.
fChromic acid recovery credit is based on a control efficiency of
 99.8 percent.
^Numbers may not add exactly due to independent rounding.
                               B-43

-------
0
u
w
u

Q
§
S^v
., to
w &
P"* s^
u 3
90
£Q
wi
H
rL *"""*'


si
o 2
sg
H
t*J f-^
*— 3
Q Ed
W
S£
og
CM
DJ Q
CO CD
W i

S CQ
H H
H Eu
CO
W £;
H£
O ..
U .
^ U
< H
H
H «
< S
u pq
• H
VO PL,
H
i
CO
Cfl
a









<£
o
rt
I











J
o
a
g
^
(N










o
g
u






£
rt

c
0





O
U
U






o
1
o










^ ^J
.E .5

§ 1 1 8

5 ™ ~ m" ®
— — — — rn




|
8 1? .11
Q 1 1 1 1
Q 3 3 S 3


2 Bo B B
_ Z Z Z Z


-^ —
c c

1 ! I § 8
*r o o — r o
'*C ^ c ^2 *•






S "E. "5. "5. "a.
i a. D. Q. a.
Q 33 33
P « to MM
,-r oo o B
5 z z z z


§
« | :i
1 "Si
?! 1 1 1

Jfi ^ 1 -5
o | s ! . § -
'1 1 1 -i § S S
05 -5 OQ £ S U. 00
- r4 « * *






o\
—




|
s's
5 *"
o *^-

* V)
2S
— 0





oo"





+
oC CN
1^
Q" O
^ o





c
a.
1"
CO
MD





Sc
8
i«





1
"E.
c.
3
M

Z





I






.1
o.
o.
M
B






c
Installatio
-






«n"
fN




+ r-
8 "^
8"S
i o*
P i^>


— O
— o





00*
o




^
+ i
^5 u«
§ «
GP O
^ 0




-
8
1
o
I
oo'
B-44

-------
           TABLE  B-17.
ESTIMATED  CAPITAL  COSTS  FOR FIBER-BED
       MIST ELIMINATORS
Fiber-bed mist eliminator size

Control device parameters
Design gas flow rate, nr /min (ft /min)a
Pressure drop, kPa (in. w.c.)
Fan static pressure, kPa (in. w.c.)*5
Fan motor size, hp (kW)c
Cost data
1. Basic fiber-bed mist eliminator
2. Inlet and outlet transitions
3. Fan and motor
4. Stack
5. Base equipment
6. Sales taxes and freight6
7. Total purchased equipment
8. Installation^
9. Modification11
10. Startup'
11. Total capital cost)
A

340 (12,000)
1.5-2.0(6-8)
2.0-2.5 (8-10)
40(30)

66,000
Included in 1
10,000
2.000
78,000
6.240
84,240
30,000
2,500
840
117,600
B

990 (35,000)
1.5-2.0(6-8)
2.6-3.1 (10.5-12.5)
125 (93)

141,000
Included in 1
15,000
3.000
159,000
12.720
171,720
56,000
5,200
1.720
234,600
''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 are based on the ventilation specifications hi Figures 1 and 2 and the pressure drop across the
 control device.
CCECO Filters, Inc., provided motor sizes based on the static pressures and gas flow rates specified above.
dSum of 1 through 4.
eSales taxes and freight costs are 3 and 5 percent, respectively, of base equipment costs.
fSum of 5 and 6.
^Includes all costs associated with Installing  instrumentation, electrical components, and piping, erection and
 contingencies; and  fee.  Assumes that the installation requires no major structural  modifications.
"Modification costs are the costs associated with modifying the existing ventilation system.
JOne percent of total purchased equipment cost.
JSum of 7, 8, 9, and 10.  Costs were rounded to nearest $100.
                                               B-45

-------
    TABLE  B-18.   ANNUALIZED  COSTS  OF FIBER-BED MIST  ELIMINATORS


Control device parameters
-3 0
Design gas flow rate, m/min (ft /nun)
Operating hours, hr/yr
Incremental fan motor size, hp (kW)b c
No. of fiber elements'3
Dimensions of fiber elements, (h,d,rt) m
(ft)b
Frequency of washdown, No. /8-hr
Duration of washdown, min"
Washdown water flowrate, L/min
(gal/min)b
Washdown of prefilter (continuous),
L/min (gal/min)
Maintenance hours, hr/yr
Operator labor hours, hr/yr'
Life expectancy of unit, yrb
Life expectancy of fiber elements, yr
Cost datad
1. Utilities
2. Operator and maintenance labor6
3. Maintenance materials
4. Fiber element replacement'
5. Indirect costsS
6. Capital recovery
7. Total annualized costs*1
Fiber-bed
A

340 (12,000)
2,000
30 (22)
4
6.1,0.61 0.05
(20.0, 2, 0.17)
1
60
2.6 (0.7)

5.3(1.4)

64
250
20
5

2,200
2,990
590
3,320
6,850
13,760
29,700
mist eliminator size
Ba
1

990 (35,000)
3,500
85 (63)
12
6.1,0.61,0.05
(20.0, 2, 0.17)
1
60
7.6 (2.0)

23.7 (6.25)

168
438
20
5

11,280
5,760
1,550
9,920
13,770
27,450
69,700

B,a

990 (35,000)
6,000
85 (63)
12
6.1,0.61 0.05
(20.0, 2, 0.17)
1
60
7.6 (2.0)

23.7 (6.25)

288
750
20
5

19,340
9,870
2,650
9,920
16,890
27,450
86,100
aB, is based on a 990 m^/min (35,000 ft^/min) unit operating 3,500 h/yr; 62 is based on the same size unit
  operating at 6,000 h/yr.
 Value of parameter provided by vendor.
cThe incremental  fan size is the additional horsepower required to operate the control device over the
  horsepower required to operate the ventilation system.
"Annualized costs were calculated from the control device parameters provided by the vendor and the operating
  hours specified above.  All costs are rounded to the nearest $10.
Includes operator,  supervisor, and maintenance  labor.
^Includes cost of fiber replacement and disposal and transportation of old fiber material with 50 percent
  compaction.
^Includes overhead, property tax, insurance, and administration.
nSum of 1 through 6.  Numbers may not add exactly due to independent rounding. Cost data were rounded to
  nearest $100.
                                              B-46

-------
TABLE B-19.  CAPITAL COSTS OF FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATORS FOR HARD
                  CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL PLANTS
Model plant size

Cost datad
Purchased equipment
Installation
Modification
Startup
Total capital cost6
Smalla

84,200
30,000
2,500
800
117, 600
Medium13

171,700
56,000
5,200
1.700
234,600
Largec

343,400
112,000
10,400
3.400
469,200
aSmall model plant costs are from Column A in Table B-21.
^Medium model plant costs are from Column B in Table B-21.
GLarge model plant costs are two times Column B in Table B-21.
°Costs were rounded to the nearest $100.
eNumbers may not add exactly due to independent rounding.
                               B-47

-------
   TABLE  B-20.  ANNUALIZED  COSTS  FOR  FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATORS
           FOR NEW HARD CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL PLANTS

Cost .._dat_ad
Utilities
Operator and maintenance
labor6
Maintenance materials
Fiber material
replacement f
Indirect costs^
Capital recovery
Annualized cost"
Chromic acid recovery1
Net annualized cost"

Small a

2,200
3,000
600
3,300
6,900
13.800
29,700
(300)
29,400
Model plant size
Medium13

11,300
5,800
1,600
9,900
13,800
27.500
69,700
(2.600)
67,100

Large0

38,700
12,800
5,300
19,800
29,600
54.900
161,200
(10.100)
151,100
aSmall model plant costs are equal to the costs presented in
 Column A of Table B-22.
^Medium model plant costs are equal to the costs presented in
 Column BT of Table B-22.
GLarge model plant costs (with the exception of operator and
 maintenance labor and indirect costs) are equal to two times the
 costs presented in Column B2 of Table B-22.
dAll costs were rounded to nearest $100.
elncludes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor.
^Fiber material replacement costs include the cost associated
 with purchasing new fiber material and transportation and
 disposal of the old material with 50 percent compaction.
^Includes overhead, property taxes, insurance, and
 administration.
^Numbers may not add exactly due to independent rounding.
^•Chromic acid recovery credit is based on a control efficiency of
 99.8 percent.
                               B-48

-------
   TABLE  B-21.   ANNUALIZED COSTS  FOR FIBER-BED  MIST ELIMINATORS
          FOR EXISTING HARD CHROMIUM PLATING OPERATIONS

Cost dataa
Utilities
Operator and maintenance
laborb
Maintenance materials
Fiber material
replacement0
Indirect costs^
Capital recovery
Annualized cost6
Chromic acid recovery
Net annualized cost8

Small

2,200
3,000
600
3,300
7,300
15.100
31,600
(300;
31,300
Model plant size
Medium

11,300
5,800
1,600
9,900
14,700
30.200
73,400
1 (2.600)
70,800

Large

38,700
12,800
5,300
19,800
31,500
60.400
168,600
(10.100)
158,500
f-All costs were rounded to nearest $100.
^Includes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor.
cFiber material replacement costs include the cost associated
 with purchasing new fiber material and transportation and
 disposal of the old material with 50 percent compaction.
^Includes overhead, property taxes, insurance, and
 administration.
8Numbers may not add exactly due to independent rounding.
fChromic acid recovery credit is based on a control efficiency of
 99.8 percent.
                               B-49

-------
B.4  REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX B

1.  Supplement to Employment and Earnings,  Bureau of Labor
    Statistics.  August 1988.  p. 55.

2.  Monthly Labor Review,  Bureau of Labor Statistics,  Volume 112,
    Number 1.  January 1989.

3.  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.

4.  Cost Enclosure for Packed-Bed Scrubber/Mesh-Pad Mist
    Eliminator Systems:  Vendor A.  Prepared for U. S.
    Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,
    North Carolina.  October 24, 1990.

5.  Telecon.   Caldwell, M. J., MRI, with Glovenor, S., Chemical
    Waste Management.  April 11, 1989.   Information on
    transportation and disposal of hexavalent chromium solid
    waste.

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 Jones, R.,  Ashland Chemical
    Corp.  Raleigh, North Carolina.  June 1,  1989.  Information
    concerning industrial grade chromic acid costs.

9.  Cost enclosure from Vendor C, to R.  Barker,  Midwest Research
    Institute.  October 5, 1990.

10. Telecon.   Barker, R.,  MRI, to Vendor A.  November 20, 1990.
    Information concerning estimated operator and maintenance
    hours.

11. Cost Enclosure for Fiber-Bed Mist Eliminators:  CECO Filters,
    Inc.  Prepared for U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.  September 19, 1989.
   pp. 2-3.

12. Telecon.   Barker, R.,  MRI, with Kaulius,  S., CECO Filters,
    Inc.  October 3, 1989.  Information regarding cost data and
    operating parameters for fiber-bed mist eliminators.
                               B-50

-------
13. Memo from Barker, R., MRI, to Smith, A., EPA.  Summary of
    Retrofit Capital and Annualized Cost Data for the Engineering
    Control Devices for the Hard and Decorative Chromium Plating
    and Chromic Acid Anodizing Model Plants.  July 6, 1989.
    pp. 1-2.

14. Cost Enclosure for Packed-Bed Scrubber/Mesh-Pad Mist
    Eliminator Systems:  Vendor C.  Prepared for U. S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
    North Carolina.  October 5, 1990.

15. Cost Enclosure for Fiber-Bed Mist Eliminators:  Monsanto
    Enviro-Chem.  Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
    September 20, 1989.  pp. 1-2.

16. Holmes, T. L., and Chen, G. K.  Design and Selection of
    Spray/Mist Elimination Equipment.  Chemical Engineering.
    October 15, 1984.  p. 86.
                              B-51

-------
    APPENDIX  C.   SUMMARY  OF MODEL  PLANT  CAPITAL AND ANNUALIZED
         COSTS FOR THE NEW EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
     Capital and annualized costs are presented here in tabular
form for packed-bed scrubbers and the new emission control
technologies for hard chromium plating model plants.  Costs  for
new and existing plants are included in the tables.
                               C-l

-------
TABLE C-l.  CAPITAL COSTS OF SINGLE PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS FOR HARD
   CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING MODEL  PLANTS  (NOVEMBER 1988  DOLLARS)

Cost dataa
Purchased equipment
Installation
Startup
Total capital costb
Total retrofit capital costc
Model
Small

19,500
17,000
200
36,700
45,900
plant size
Medium

47,300
26,400
500
74,200
92,800

Large

94,600
52,900
900
148,400
185,500
aCosts were rounded to nearest $100.
^Numbers may not total exactly due to independent rounding.
GCapital cost estimate representative of an existing facility
 cost.
                                C-2

-------
 TABLE  C-2.   ANNUALIZED COSTS  FOR SINGLE PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS  FOR
          NEW HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS
                      (NOVEMBER 1988 DOLLARS)

Cost data5
Utilities
Operator and maintenance
laborb
Maintenance materials
Packing replacement0
Indirect costs'^
Capital recovery
Annualized cost
Chromic acid recovery8
Net annualized costf

Small

600
1,700
500
100
2,800
4.300
10,000
(300
9,700
Model plant
Medium

3,800
2,300
1,100
300
5,000
8.700
21,200
) (2,600)
18,600
size
Large

12,900
3,900
3,600
600
10,400
17,400
48,800
(10,000)
38,800
f-All costs were rounded to nearest $100.
 Includes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor.
cPacking replacement costs include the cost associated with
 purchasing new packing material and transportation and disposal
 of the old material with 50% compaction.
 Includes overhead, property taxes, insurance, and
 administration.
eChromic acid recovery credit is based on a control efficiency of
 99 percent.
fNumbers may not total exactly due to independent rounding.
                               C-3

-------
 TABLE  C-3.  ANNUALIZED  COSTS  FOR SINGLE  PACKED-BED  SCRUBBERS  FOR
       EXISTING HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS
                     (NOVEMBER 1988 DOLLARS)
Model plant size

Cost dataa
Utilities
Operator and maintenance
laborb
Maintenance materials
Packing replacement
Indirect costs^
Capital recovery
Annualized cost
Chromic acid recovery6
Net annualized costf
Small

600
1,700
500
100
3,100
5.400
11,400
(300)
11,100
Medium

. 3,800
2,300
1,100
300
5,700
10.900
24,100
(2,600)
21,500
Large

12,900
3,900
3,600
600
11,900
21.700
54,600
(10,000)
44,600
aAll costs were rounded to nearest $100.
^Includes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor.
GPacking replacement costs include the cost associated with
 purchasing new packing material and transportation and disposal
 of the old material with 50% compaction.
dlncludes overhead, property taxes, insurance, and
 administration.
eChromic acid recovery credit is based on a control efficiency of
 99 percent.
fNumbers may not total exactly due to independent rounding.
                               C-4

-------
   TABLE  C-4.   CAPITAL COSTS  OF MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATORS WITH
      MESH PADS IN SERIES FOR HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING
               MODEL  PLANTS  (NOVEMBER 1988  DOLLARS)

Cost dataa
Purchased equipment
Installation
Startup
Total capital costb
Total retrofit capital costc
Model
Small

24,40.0
2,600
200
27,200
34,000
plant size
Medium

68,300
2,900
700
71,800
89,800

Large

136,500
5,700
1.400
143,600
179,500
aCosts were rounded to nearest $100.
^Numbers may not total exactly due to independent rounding.
GCapital cost estimate representative of an existing facility
 cost.
                               C-5

-------
 TABLE  C-5.  ANNUALIZED  COSTS  FOR MESH-PAD MIST  ELIMINATORS  WITH
    MESH PADS IN SERIES FOR NEW HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING
              MODEL  PLANTS  (NOVEMBER  1988 DOLLARS)
Model plant size

Cost dataa
Utilities
Operator and maintenance
laborb
Maintenance materials
Mesh pad replacement13
Indirect costs"
Capital recovery
Annualized cost6
Chromic acid recovery^
Net annual ized cost6
Small

1,100
2,000
1,400
1,800
3,100
4,400
13,800
(300)
13,500
Medium

7,300
3,000
2,400
4,800
6,100
11.700
35,400
(2,600)
32,800
Large

25,000
6,200
8,300
9,600
14,400
23.400
86,800
(10,100)
76,700
aAll costs were rounded to nearest $100.
^Includes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor.
GMesh pad replacement costs include the cost associated with
 purchasing new mesh pad material and transportation and disposal
 of the old material with 50% compaction.
^Includes overhead, property taxes, insurance, and
 administration.
6Numbers may not total exactly due to independent rounding.
fChromic acid recovery credit is based on a control efficiency of
 99.8 percent.
                               C-6

-------
 TABLE C-6.   ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR MESH-PAD MIST ELIMINATORS WITH
  MESH PADS IN SERIES FOR EXISTING HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING
               MODEL PLANTS  (NOVEMBER 1988 DOLLARS)
Model plant

Cost dataa
Utilities
Operator and maintenance
laborb
Maintenance materials
Mesh pad replacement0
Indirect costs
Capital recovery
Annualized cost6
Chromic acid recovery^
Net annualized cost6
Small

1,100
2,000
1,400
1,800
3,400
5.500
15,200
(300)
14,900
Medium

7,300
3,000
2,400
4,800
6,900
14.600
39,000
(2,600
36,400
size
Large

25,000
6,200
8,300
9,600
15,900
29.300
94,200
) (10,100)
84,100
aAll costs were rounded to nearest $100.
"includes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor.
cMesh pad replacement costs include the cost associated with
 purchasing new mesh pad material and transportation and disposal
 of the old material with 50% compaction.
^Includes overhead, property taxes, insurance, and
 administration.
6Numbers may not total exactly due to independent rounding.
^Chromic acid recovery credit is based on a control efficiency of
 99.8 percent.
                               C-7

-------
  TABLE  C-7.   CAPITAL COSTS  OF PACKED-BED SCRUBBER/MESH-PAD MIST
      ELIMINATOR  SYSTEMS  FOR HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING
               MODEL PLANTS  (NOVEMBER 1988 DOLLARS)

Cost dataa
Purchased equipment
Installation
Startup
Total capital costb
Total retrofit capital costc
Model
Small

45,100
12,600
500
58,100
72,600
plant
Medium

82,500
14,500
800
97,800
122,200
size
Large

165,000
29,000
1.600
195,600
244,500
aCosts were rounded to nearest $100.
^Numbers may not total exactly due to independent rounding.
GCapital cost estimate representative of an existing facility
 cost.
                                C-8

-------
  TABLE C-8.  ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR PACKED-BED SCRUBBER/MESH-PAD
MIST ELIMINATOR SYSTEMS FOR NEW HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING
              MODEL PLANTS  (NOVEMBER 1988  DOLLARS)

Cost dataa
Utilities
Operator and maintenance
labor13
Maintenance materials
Packing material replacement0
Mesh pad replacement0
Indirect costs^
Capital recovery
Annualized cost6
Chromic acid recovery^
Net annualized cost6

Small

1,600
1,700
500
300
2,700
3,600
6.900
17,300
(300
17,000
Model plant size
Medium

8,300
2,300
1,100
1,000
4,400
6,000
11,500
34,400
) (2,600) i
31,800

Large

28,500
3,900
3,600
1,900
8,900
12,300
23.100
82,200
(10,100)
72,100
f-All costs were rounded to nearest $100.
^Includes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor.
°Replacement costs include the cost associated with
 purchasing new material and transportation and disposal of the
 old material with 50% compaction.
^Includes overhead, property taxes, insurance, and
 administration.
6Numbers may not total exactly due to independent rounding.
 Chromic acid recovery credit is based on a control efficiency of
 99.8 percent.
                               C-9

-------
  TABLE  C-9.  ANNUALIZED  COSTS  FOR  PACKED-BED  SCRUBBER/MESH-PAD
        MIST  ELIMINATOR SYSTEMS FOR EXISTING HARD  CHROMIUM
       ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS  (NOVEMBER 1988 DOLLARS)
Model plant

Cost dataa
Utilities
Operator and maintenance
laborb
Maintenance materials
Packing material replacement0
Mesh pad replacement0
Indirect costs0*
Capital recovery
Annualized cost6
Chromic acid recovery^
Net annualized cost6
Small

1,600
1,700
500
300
2,700
4,200
8.600
19,600
(300)
19,300
Medium

8,300
2,300
1,100
1,000
4,400
6,900
14,400
38,300
(2,600
35,700
size
Large

28,500
3,900
3,600
1,900
8,900
14,300
28.900
90,100
) (10,100)
80,000
aAll costs were rounded to nearest $100.
"Includes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor.
Replacement costs include the cost associated with
 purchasing new material and transportation and disposal of the
 old material with 50% compaction.
^Includes overhead, property taxes, insurance, and
 administration.
6Numbers may not total exactly due to independent rounding.
fChromic acid recovery credit is based on a control efficiency of
 99.8 percent.
                               C-10

-------
TABLE C-10.  CAPITAL COSTS OF FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATORS FOR HARD
   CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS (NOVEMBER 1988 DOLLARS)

Cost dataa
Purchased equipment
Installation
Modification
Startup
Total capital cost*3
Total retrofit capital costc
Model
Small

82,000
29,200
2,400
800
114,600
126,100
plant size
Medium

167,300
54,600
5,100
1.700
228,600
251,500

Large

334,600
109,100
10,100
3.300
457,100
502,800
aCosts were rounded to nearest $100.
^Numbers may not total exactly due to independent rounding.
GCapital cost estimate representative of an existing facility
 cost.
                               C-ll

-------
 TABLE  C-ll.  ANNUALIZED  COSTS  FOR  FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATORS  FOR
          NEW HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS
                     (NOVEMBER 1988 DOLLARS)
Model plant

Cost dataa
Utilities
Operator and maintenance
labor13
Maintenance materials
Fiber material replacement0
Indirect costs"
Capital recovery
Annualized cost6
Chromic acid recovery
Net annualized cost6
Small

2,200
3,000
600
3,300
6,700
13,400
29,200
(300)
28,900
Medium

11,300
5,800
1,600
9,900
13,500
26.700
68,800
(2,600)
66,200
size
Large

38,700
12,800
5,300
19,800
29,200
53.500
159,300
(10,100)
149,200
     costs were rounded to nearest $100.
^Includes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor.
cFiber material replacement costs include the cost associated
 with purchasing new fiber material and transportation and
 disposal of the old material with 50% compaction.
dlncludes overhead, property taxes, insurance, and
 administration.
6Numbers may not total exactly due to independent rounding.
fChromic acid recovery credit is based on a control efficiency of
 99.8 percent.
                               C-12

-------
 TABLE C-12.   ANNUALIZED COSTS  FOR FIBER-BED MIST ELIMINATORS  FOR
       EXISTING HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING MODEL PLANTS
                     (NOVEMBER 1988 DOLLARS)

Cost dataa
Utilities
Operator and maintenance
labor10
Maintenance materials
Fiber material replacement0
Indirect costs
Capital recovery
Annualized cost6
Chromic acid recovery^
Net annualized cost6

Small

2,200
3,000
600
3,300
7,200
14.800
31,000
(300
30,700
Model plant
Medium

11,300
5,800
1,600
9,900
14,400
29.400
72,400
) (2,600)
69,800
size
Large

38,700
12,800
5,300
19,800
31,000
58.800
166,400
(10,100)
156,300
     costs were rounded to nearest $100.
^Includes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor.
GFiber material replacement costs include the cost associated
 with purchasing new fiber material and transportation and
 disposal of the old material with 50% compaction.
 Includes overhead, property taxes, insurance, and
 administration.
6Numbers may not total exactly due to independent rounding.
^Chromic acid recovery credit is based on a control efficiency of
 99.8 percent.
                               C-13

-------