United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 87CEP6
September 1987
Air
NESHAP SCREENING
METHOD
CHROMIUM
EMISSION TEST
REPORT
ROLL TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION
GREENVILLE,
SOUTH CAROLINA
-------
EMB Report No. 87-CEP-6
EMISSION TEST REPORT
ROLL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA
EPA Contract No: 68-02-4346
Work Assignments 2 and 3
Prepared by:
PEER Consultants, P.C.
4134 Linden Avenue
Dayton, Ohio 45432
and
Frank R. Clay, Task Manager
Emission Measurement Branch
Technical Support Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
September 1987
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Test Protocol 1-1
1.1.1 Screening Method Tests 1-1
1.1.2 Mass Emission Tests 1-2
1.1.3 Process Operation During Testing 1-2
t •
1.2 Scrubber and Mist Eliminator Testing 1-2
1.3 Conclusions 1-3
2.0 PROCESS OPERATION 2-1
2.1 Process Description 2-1
2.2 Air Pollution Control 2-3
2.3 Process Conditions During Testing 2-8
3.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 3-1
3.1 Hexavalent'Chromium and Total Chromium 3-3
3.1.1 Scrubber Inlet 3-3
3.1.1.1 Flue Gas Conditions and 3-4
Isokinetic Sampling Rate
3.1.1.2 Hexavalent Chromium Emissions 3-7
3.1.1.3 Total Chromium Emissions 3-7
' *» '. '
3.1.2 Scrubber Outlet 3-7
3.1.2.1 Flue Gas Conditions and 3-8
Isokinetic Sampling Rate 3-8
3.1.2.2 Hexavalent Chromium Emissions 3-8
3.1.2.3 Total Chromium Emissions 3-9
3.1.3 Demister Outlet 3-9
3.1.3.1 Flue Gas Conditions and 3-9
Isokinetic Sampling Rate
3.1.3.2 Hexavalent Chromium Emissions 3-10
3.1.3.3 Total Chromium Emissions 3-10
-------
Section Page
3.2 Screening Method Introduction 3-10
3.2.1 Screening Method Procedures 3-11
and Results
3.2.2 Screening Method Memorandum (Roll 3-12
Technology)
4.0 SAMPLING LOCATIONS 4-1
4.1 Scrubber Inlet 4-1
4.2 Scrubber Outlet (Mist Eliminator Inlet) 4-3
4.3 Mist Eliminator Outlet 4-6
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Field Quality Assurance Procedures 5-1
5.2.1 Sample Blanks 5-1
5.2.1.1 Reagent Blanks 5-1
5.2.2 "Spiked" Samples 5-2
5.2.3 Emissions Samples 5-2
5.2.4 Chain of Custody 5-2
5.3 Sampling Train Components 5-3
5.4 Laboratory Analysis 5-3
11
-------
TABLES
NUMBER PAGE
2-1 Specifications of Hard Chromium Plating Tanks at Roll Technology 2-4
2-2 Average Operating Parameters Recorded During Each Mass Emission 2-9
Test Run
2-3 Total Current Supplied To Tanks During Each Source Test Run 2-10
3-1 Testing Schedule for Roll Technology Corporation 3-2
3-2 Summary of Flue Gas Conditions 3-5
3-3 Summary of Hexavalent and Total Chromium Emissions 3-6
Screening Method Results Vs. Method 13-B Results (Inlet Location 3-19
Before Test Pump Volumes)
Screening Method Results Vs. Method 13-B Results (Outlet Location 3-20
Before Test Pump Volumes)
Screening Method Vs. Method 13-B Results (Inlet Location - After 3-21
Test Pump Volumes)
Screening Method Vs. Method 13-B Results (Outlet Location - After 3-22
Test Pump Volumes)
m
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER PAGE
Figure 2-1 Plan View of Roll Technology Plating Facility 2-2
Figure 2-2 Plan View of Exhaust System on Tank Nos. 1,2,3, and 7 2-5
Figure 2-3 Schematic of Emission Control System at Roll Technology, 2-6
Greenville, South Carolina
Figure 4-1 Simplified Process Flow Diagram Showing Sample Port Location 4-2
Figure 4-2 Scrubber Inlet (Sampling Location A) 4-4
Figure 4-3 Scrubber Outlet Locations (Ducts A and B) 4-5
Figure 4-4 Existing Mist Eliminator Outlet at Roll Technology Corp. 4-7
Figure 4-5 Modifications to the Mist Eliminator Outlet at Roll Tech- 4-8
nology Corp.
IV
-------
APPENDICIES
A. Handheld Computer Printouts
B. Field Test Data Sheets
C. Labratory Data
D. Analytical Methods For Total Chromium and Hexavalent Chromium
E. Amphere-Hour Calculations
F. Project Participants
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Source testing was conducted at Roll Technology, Inc.,
Greenville, South Carolina, from September 22 through
September 24, 1987. The primary purpose of this test was to
evaluate an inexpensive screening method as an alternative to
a Reference Method 13-B test for determining compliance.
Reference Method 13-B tests also were conducted to evaluate the
performance of the double-packed-bed scrubber and mist elimi-
nator used to control emissions from four hard chromium plating
tanks. The mass emission tests were performed by Peer
Consultants, Inc., under the direction of Messrs. Frank Clay
and John Brown of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Emission Measurement Branch (EMB), and the screening
method tests were performed by EMB personnel. Personnel from
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, analyzed samples for hexavalent chromium at the plant
site. Ms. Robin Barker of Midwest Research Institute monitored
the process during the tests.
1.1 TEST PROTOCOL
1.1.1 Screening Method Tests
TeflonR filters from personal samplers and pieces of
TeflonR tubing (8 inches in length) were used to collect the
samples. Both the filters and the tubing were placed into
the gas stream such that the tubing and filter openings faced
directly into the gas stream flow. The sample locations were
the inlet of the scrubber and outlet of the mist eliminator.
TeflonR filters and tubing were selected as the collection
media because chromium has a high affinity to attach to the
1-1
-------
Teflon** surface, and TeflonR is chemically inert with respect
to chromic acid. Screening tests were conducted concurrently
with the Reference Method 13-B tests at the inlet of the
scrubber and the outlet of the mist eliminator. At the inlet,
six 1-hour test runs were made. At the outlet, five 2-hour
test runs were made. The purpose of the screening method is
to develop an inexpensive test method for compliance testing.
1.1.2 Mass Emission Tests
Testing was conducted at the inlet and outlet of the
scrubber and at the outlet of the mist eliminator. (The
scrubber outlet also serves as the inlet of the mist elimi-
nator) . Six mass emission tests were conducted on the scrubber
and mist eliminator. The inlet and outlet locations were
tested simultaneously, and each test run lasted 2 hours.
Emission testing was conducted with a modified Method 13-B
sampling train. The sampling train was modified for chromium
by eliminating the filter. One tenth normal sodium hydroxide
is used in the impingers.
1.1.3 Process Operations During Testing
At the time of the test, the plant was plating industrial
rolls and machine parts. Process operating parameters such as
current, voltage, and bath temperature were recorded during
each test run. Also recorded were descriptions (dimensions
and surface area) and plating requirements (current and plating
time) of each individual job or item being plated during each
test run. The process was operating normally during testing.
1.2 SCRUBBER AND MIST ELIMINATOR TESTING
The double packed-bed scrubber was manufactured and
installed by Napco, Inc. in 1978. Four plating tanks are
vented to the scrubber, and whenever two of the tanks were
1-2
-------
not charged, testing was stopped. The pressure drop across
the scrubber was monitored during testing and averaged 0.31
kilopascal (kPa)(1.25 inches of water column [in. w.c.]).
Personnel at Napco, Inc., were contacted to determine the
design pressure drop of the unit. Napco, Inc., reported
that the design pressure drop is 0.75 kPa (3.0 in. w.c.),
which indicates the scrubber was operating well below optimum
conditions during testing. The design gas flow rate of the
scrubber was 9.4 standard cubic meters per second (m3/s)
(20,000 standard cubic feet per minute [scfm]). During
testing, a gas flow rate of 5.0 standard m3/s (10,700 scfm)
was measured. Therefore, the collection efficiency during
testing would be expected to be below the design efficiency
(96 to 99 percent) reported by Napco, Inc., because of the low
contact and turbulence generated between the liquid and gas
streams, as indicated by the flue gas flow rate and pressure
drop monitored.
The mist eliminator was manufactured and installed down-
stream of the scrubber by KCH Services, Inc., in August 1987.
The pressure drop across the mist eliminator was not measured
during testing. The wash down spray system for the mist
eliminator was not installed at the time of the test. This
system is necessary to provide adequate rinsing of the mist
eliminator blades to remove accumulations of chromic acid.
Inadequate rinsing could adversely affect the performance of
the mist eliminator.
1.3 CONCLUSIONS
The results of the screening method tests can be compared
to the results from the mass emission tests to evaluate the
screening method as alternative to EPA Method 13-B because
samples for both tests were taken at the same locations simul-
taneously. These results are discussed later in the report.
1-3
-------
Because the double packed-bed scrubber was operating at a
pressure drop and gas flow rate well below design and because
the mist eliminator rinse system had not been installed,
performance data of these units in combination or individually
should not be considered representative of performance levels
achievable with properly installed, operated, and maintained
double packed-bed scrubbers and mist eliminators.
This report is organized into several sections addressing
various aspects of the testing program. Immediately following
this introduction is the "Process Operation" section which
includes a description of the process and control device
tested. Following this is the "Summary of Results" section
which presents table summaries of the test data and discusses
these results. The next section, "Sampling Locations and Test
Methods" describes and illustrates the sampling locations for
emissions testing and grab sampling and then explains the
sampling strategies used. The Appendices present the complete
Test Results and Example Calculations (Appendix A); Field and
Analytical Data (Appendix B); Sampling and Analytical Proce-
dures (Appendix C); Calibration Data (Appendix D); MRI Process
Data (Appendix E); and Test Participants and Observers
(Appendix F).
1-4
-------
2.0 PROCESS OPERATION
2.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Roll Technology, Inc., is a job shop specializing in
precision finishing and refinishing of industrial rolls.
Operations performed at this facility include hard chromium
plating, sulfamate .nickel plating, machining, grinding, and
mirror finishing. The plant plates rolls that are used pri-
marily in the paper manufacturing, roofing, laminating, and
coating industries.
There are seven hard chromium plating tanks at this
facility, arranged as shown in Figure 2.1. On the average,
the tanks are charged for a total of 20 hours per day. Appro-
ximately 4 hours per day are required for the change-over of
rolls. During a change-over, the roll that has been plated is
raised out of the plating tank, rinsed with water from a hose,
and transferred to the grinding area. Then, the roll to be
plated is cleaned with an abrasive cleanser and lowered into
the plating solution. Plating times range from 1 to 36 hours,
depending on the surface area of the roll and the plate
thickness required. Rolls that require longer plating times
typically are plated overnight, and rolls that require shorter
plating times are plated during the day when personnel are
available to perform the change-over.
Tank Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7 were tested during this source
test program. The tanks are situated below floor level and are
oriented with the longest dimension in the vertical direction.
Each tank is serviced by an electric hoist that lowers and
raises the rolls into and out of the plating solution. In
addition, each tank is equipped with a timer that automatically
turns off the electrodes at the end of the specified plating
time.
2-1
-------
SULFAMATE
NICKEL PLATING,
GRINDING, AND
POLISHING AREA
EMISSIONS DUCTED TO HEIL FUKE
SCRUBBER ON FLOOR ADJACENT TO TANK
EMISSIONS DUCTED TO HEIL FUKE SCRUBBER
ON FLOOR ADJACENT TO TANK
/^CONTROLLED EMISSIONS DUCTED TO FAN ON ROD!
NAPCO
fll
OFFICES
STORAGE AREA
OFFICES
EMISSIONS DUCTED TO
KCH FUKE SCRUBBER ON ROOF
Figure 2-1. Plan view of ROLL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
2-2
-------
The plating tanks are typical of other hard chromium
plating tanks in the electroplating industry, based on
operating parameters such as current, voltage, plating time,
and chromic acid concentration. Table 2-1 presents the process
operating parameters for the four tanks. Although the composi-
tion of the plating solution remains constant, the operating
r
voltage and current vary with each roll that is plated.
2.2 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
Prior to August 1987, the emission control system on the
four tanks consisted of double-sided draft hoods on each tank
connected to a common duct and vented to a double packed-bed
scrubber located on a mezzanine adjacent to the plating tanks
(see Figure 2-3). During August, the emission control system
was reconditioned; and a mist eliminator was installed down-
stream of the scrubber. The mist eliminator was installed to
circumvent any carry-over of chromic acid from the scrubber.
KCH Services, ^., was the contractor who reconditioned the
capture system and installed the mist eliminator.
During the reconditioning of the capture system, the
original hoods on Tank Nos. 2 and 7 were replaced with new
double-sided draft hoods and new ductwork was installed from
each of the four ventilation hoods up to the entrance to the
scrubber. In addition to these modifications, an epoxy coating
was added to the outside of all the ductwork in the emission
control system to prevent corrosion and leakage from the ducts.
A plan view of the exhaust system is shown in Figure 2-2.
The double packed-bed scrubber was manufactured and
installed by Napco, Inc., in 1978 (Model No. MA-101). Each
bed is 30 centimeters (12 inches) in depth and contains
polypropylene mass packing. The beds are sprayed continuously
with water, which drains into a remote holding tank and is
recirculated to the scrubber. The design liquid flow rate is
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-1. SPECIFICATIONS OF HARD CHROMIUM PLATING TANKS AT ROLL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
Tank
No.
1
2
3
7
Dimensions,
V.w.d
m (ft)
1.07,1.22,3.66
(3.5,4.0,12.0)
1.22,1.36,5.33
(4.0,4.5,17.5)
1.83, 1.83, 4.27
(6.0,6.0,14.0)
1.83,1.22,4.27
(6.0,4.0,14.0)
Capacity,
i (gal)
4,361
(1,152)
8,146
(2,152)
12.265
(3,240)
10,221
(2,700)
Voltage,
voltsa
15
15
15
15
Current.
amperes
8,000
15,000
20,000
15,000
Method
of
cooling
Water
Water
Water
Water
.Constituents,
g/i (oz/gal)
Cr03
250
(33)
250
(33)
250
(33)
250
(33) .
HaSO-t
2.5
(0.33)
2.5
(0.33)
2.5
(0.33)
2.5
(0.33)
aValues represent maximum operating values.
-------
CD
T -"•
I ^»9'.. ..„
i .1
•
Figure 2-2. Plan view of exhaust system on Tank Nos. I, 2, 3, and 7
-------
DIVIDED
DUCTWORK
i
MIST ELIMINATOR
I X
FAN
/
SCRUBBER
\ /
TANK
NO.
7
/I
TANK
NO.
1
TANK
NO.
2
ROOF
TANK
NO.
3
MEZZAHIN:
FLOOR
Figure 2-3. Sche.natic of Emission Control System at Roll Technology, Greem
South Carolina
2-6
-------
75 to 225 liters per minute (20 to 60 gallons per minute)
and the design gas flow rate is 564 cubic meters per minute
(m3/min)(20,000 standard cubic feet per minute [scfmj).
However, the gas flow rate during testing was 311 m3/min
(11,550 actual cubic feet per minute).
The 568-liter (150-gallon) holding tank is flushed and
filled with clean water two or three times a day. The spent
liquid is either used as makeup solution for the plating tanks
or is treated on site in a wastewater treatment system. The
scrubber also contains a chevron-blade mist eliminator stage
for the removal of water droplets entrained in the exhaust gas
stream. The entire scrubbing unit has a design control
efficiency of 96 to 99 percent for the removal of chromic acid.
The ductwork is divided at the outlet of the scrubber and
is rejoined at the inlet to the mist eliminator. The mist
eliminator was installed on the roof of the plating shop. The
mist eliminator contains a double set of wave-type blades that
change-the direction of gas flow four times at 30° angles,
which causes chromic acid droplets to impinge on the blades by
inertial force. In addition, spray nozzles are mounted at the
inlet of the mist eliminator. The nozzles are activated
periodically to wash down the blades with water to remove
chromic acid. The wash down water is drained to the scrubber
holding tank. During testing, the piping for the water spray
system had not been installed to allow for rinsing of the mist
eliminator.
During the reconditioning of the control system, the
original exhaust fan was relocated from the outlet of the
scrubber to a location downstream of the mist eliminator.
The fan was manufactured by Duall Industries, Inc. (Model No.
NH-66) and is rated at 564 m3/min (20,000 standard cubic feet
per minute [scfm]) for air at 21°C (70°F). During testing a
gas flow rate of 288 m3/rain (10,700d scfm) was measured.
2-7
-------
2.3 PROCESS CONDITIONS DURING TESTING
Mass emission tests were conducted at the inlet and outlet
of the scrubber and at the outlet of the mist eliminator to
characterize the performance of the control devices independ-
ently and in series.
Process operating parameters such as plating"solution
temperature, operating voltage, and operating current were
monitored and recorded during each test. run. The process was
operating normally during emission testing. Process data
sheets documenting the process operating parameters monitored
during testing are presented in Appendix E. Data on the
average operating parameters recorded for each test run are
presented in Table 2.2. Also recorded were descriptions
(dimensions and surface area) and plating requirements (current
and plating time) of each individual job or item being plated
during each test run. This information was obtained from log
sheets maintained by plant personnel and is also presented in
Appendix E, The total current supplied to the tanks during
each test run was calculated in terms of ampere-hours and is
reported in Appendix E. A summary of the total current values
is presented in Table 2-3.
The pressure drop across the scrubber was measured twice
during testing and averaged 0.31 kilopascals (kPa)(1.25 inches
of water). Due to the low pressure drop monitored, personnel
at Napco, Inc., were contacted to determine the design pressure
for the unit. Napco, Inc., reported that the scrubber was de-
signed to operate at a pressure drop of 0.75 kPa (3.0 in w.c.).
The low pressure drop and gas flow rate monitored during
testing indicate that the scrubber was operating below optimum
conditions.
Grab samples were taken from each plating tank to
determine the chromic acid concentration of the plating solu-
lution during emission testing. The grab samples were taken
immediately after test run No. 3 was completed. Grab samples
2-8
-------
TABLE 2-2. AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS RECORDED DURING EACH
. MASS EMISSION TEST RUN
Run No. Tank No.
1 1 -,
2
3
7
2 1
2
3
7
3 1
2
3
7
4 1
2
3
7
5 1
2
3
7
6 1
2
3
7
Operating
voltage, volts
5.4
7.6
10.1
6.9
7.0
9.0
10.2
7.6
6.4
6.1
9.8
6.4 .
6.6
9.5
10.0
7.2
6.4
7.4
8.0
8.0
7.3
7.1
12.2
6.8
Operating
current,
amperes
800
2,550
4,400
1,500
3,000
4,000
4,400
2,200
1,855
1,500
4,400
800
3,000
3,020
4,400
2,200
1,636
7,117
1,800
1,800
2,800
3,010
4,254
2,300
Temp, of plating
solution, °C (°F)
54 (129)
52 (126)
54 (130)
53 (128)
54 (130)
54 (130)
54 (129)
54 (130)
53 (128)
53 (128)
54 (129)
53 (128)
55 (131)
54 (129)
55 (131)
54 (130)
54 (130)
54 (130)
53 (128)
54 (129)
54 (130)
54 (129)
55 (131)
54 (130)
2-9
-------
TABLE 2-3. TOTAL CURRENT SUPPLIED TO TANKS DURING EACH
SOURCE TEST RUN
Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Tank No.
1
2
3
7
TOTAL
1
2
3
7
TOTAL
1
2
3 . _
7
TOTAL
1
2
3
7
TOTAL
I
2
3
7
TOTAL
1
2
3
7
TOTAL
Total current,
ampere-hours
827
5,243
8,507
3,013
17,590
6,250
8,333
9,167
4,770
28,520
3,170
2,657
4,547
987
11,361
3,900
5,872
9,020
2,860
21,652
3,170
14,233
0
3,330
20,733
3,034
5,027
7,986
4,326
20,373
2-10
-------
of the scrubber water were taken at the end of test run Nos. 2
and 3. The chromic acid concentrations of the grab samples are
reported in Section 3 of this report.
Test run Nos. 1, 2, and 4 were each interrupted twice.
Each of the three runs was interrupted approximately 15 to 20
minutes to change test ports. Run No. 1 was interrupted 30
minutes due to a low current loading, run Nos. 2 and 4 were
interrupted for 20'to 3 minutes due to power losses to the
meter boxes. Test run No. 5 was interrupted for 7 minutes due
to a broken U-tube connector in the sample train« Tost run No,.
5 also was interrupted for 15 minutes to change test ports ana.
for 30 minutes due to a low current loading in the tank. Test-
run No. 3 was interrupted only once for 15 minutes to change
the test port. Test run No. 6 was interrupted four times for
brief periods; once to change the test port and threes times
because of power losses to the meter boxer.
2-11
-------
3.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Method 13-B runs were conducted at the scrubber inlet,
scrubber outlet (two locations), and the demister outlet.
(Note that the scrubber outlet is also the demister inlet.)
Screening method runs were performed at the scrubber inlet
and the demister outlet. Table 3.1 summarizes the testing
schedule for the Method 13-B runs.
In brief, from the results of the Method 13-B testing,
the uncontrolled emissions from the tanks (scrubber inlet)
averaged .085 pounds per hour of hexavalent chromium and
.109 Ibs per hour total chromium. The controlled emissions
at the scrubber outlet (which is also the demister inlet)
averaged .0054 pounds per hour hexavalent chromium (total
chromium was not analyzed at the outlet). The resulting
collection efficiency for the scrubber was 93.7 percent for
hexavalent chromium.
It is possible to use the scrubber outlet data to
determine the efficiency of the demister by comparing scrub-
ber outlet data with demister outlet data. The demister out-
let averaged .0033 pounds per hour total chromium for runs
two through six. Using the demister inlet values for the
corresponding runs, the average emission rate at the demister
inlet was .0056 pounds per hour of chromium six. The result-
ing collection efficiency of the demister is 40.7 percent.
By using the scrubber inlet data and the demister outlet
data, it is possible to determine the overall efficiency of
the two control devices based upon chromium six results. The
inlet average is .0854 pounds per hour hexavalent chromium
and the outlet average at the demister is .0033 pounds per
hour, the efficiency is then 96.1 percent.
3-1
-------
TABLE 3.1 TESTING SCHEDULE FOR ROLL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
DATE
(1987)
9/22
9/22
9/23
9/23
9/24
9/24
SAMPLE
TYPE
13 B
13 B
13 B
13 B
13 B
13 B
Scrubber Inlet
Run No
SI-1
SI-2
SI-3
SI-4
SI-5
SI-6
Test Time
24 Hr Clock
11:56-14:52
17:58-20:25
09:40-12:02
15:39-18:00
09:33-12:27
14:23-17:06
Scrubber .Outlet
Run No
SO-A1
SO-B1
SO-A2
SO-B2
SO-A3
SO-B3
SO-A4
SO-B4
SO-A5
SO-B5
SO-A6
SO-B6
Test Time
24 Hr Clock
11:56-14:52
17:58-20:25
09:40-12:02
15:39-18:00
09:33-12:27
4:23-17:06
Demister Outlet
Run No
ME-02
ME-03
ME-04
ME-05
ME-06
Test Time
24 Hr Clock
17:58-20:25
09:40-12:02
15:39-18:00
09:33 12:27
14:23-17:06
U)
I
ro
-------
The preceding discussion covers the Method 13-B results only.
Screening results are discussed separately in Section 3.4.
In the following sections, the results addressed above and
additional results are presented and discussed in detail
according to emission type and sampling location. The
handheld computer printouts and emission calculations can be
found in Appendix A. The original field data sheets and the
analytical data are located in Appendix B.
3.1 HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM AND TOTAL CHROMIUM
Hexavalent chromium tests (EPA Method 13-B) along with the
associated flue gas flow rates were conducted at the scrubber
inlet, scrubber outlet, and demister outlet. All samples
were analyzed on site for hexavalent chromium and the six
inlet samples (from the 13-B trains) were also analyzed for
total chromium. Complete descriptions of each sampling
location and the sampling and analytical procedure are given
in Chapter 4 (and Appendix C).
3.1.1 Scrubber Inlet
The scrubber inlet represents the uncontrolled emissions
from plating tanks No. 1, 2, 3, and 7. The circular hori-
zontal inlet duct did not meet the minimum sampling specif-
ications of Reference Method 1, so the ports were located 0.8
of the total length of straight run downstream of the
vertical pipe elbow. (The location is the same as the
May 1985 Emission Measurement Branch test except that both
horizontal and vertical traverse were performed in 1987).
Prior to Method 13-B testing at the scrubber inlet, a type
S pitot traverse was conducted along the two axes of the
duct. The duct was checked for cyclonic flow. The absolute
3-3
-------
angle of deviation was 11.6° which is well within the 20°
allowed by Reference Method 1.
3.1.1.1 Flue Gas Conditions and Isokinetic Sampling Rate
A summary of flue gas conditions at the scrubber inlet,
scrubber outlet, and demister outlet is presented in Table
3.2. The volumetric flow rates were quite consistent and
averaged 10900 Dry Standard Cubic Feet per minute. Average
flow rates at the scrubber inlet, scrubber outlet and
demister outlet were 11,100, 10,900, 10,700 Dry Standard
Cubic Feet (dscf) per minute. Comparing these locations with
the average, the maximum variation is less than 2 percent for
the scrubber inlet and demister outlet., while the scrubber
outlet did not vary at all. (All tests should be so good).
The flue gas temperature averaged 78°F (26°C) with a
moisture content of 1.6 percent. The oxygen, carbon dioxide,
and carbon monoxide content was that of air at 20.9, 0.0, and
0.0 percent respectively. The volumetric flow rate at
standard conditions averaged 10,900 dry standard cubic feet
per minute (654,000 dry standard, cubic feet per hour). This
equals 309 dry standard cubic meters per minute on 18519 dry
standard cubic meters per hour. Standard conditions are 20°C
(68°F) and 760mm Hg (29.92 in Hg) dry. The isokinetic sampl-
ing for all runs was acceptable.
3-4
-------
TABLE 3.2 SUMMARY OF FLUE GAS CONDITIONS
SCRUBBER INLET
RUN
NO.
SI-1
SI-2
SI-3
SI-4
SI-5
SI-6
Ave
DATE
(1987)
22 Sep
22 Sep
23 Sep
23 Sep
24 Sep
24 Sep
jrage
TEST
TIME
AM/PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATES
ACTUAL
ACFM
12096
12699
11784
11877
11956
11291
11951
ACMM
343
360
334
336
339
320
338
DRY STANDARD
DSCFM
11268
11779
11027
11034
11191
10361
11110
DSCMM
319
334
312
312
317
293
315
STACK
TEMPERATURE
QC
27
29
25
28
26
29
27
OF
81
85
77
83
78
84
81
MOISTURE
%
1.6
1.1
1.9
1.6
1.6
2.4
1.7
02
%
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
C02
%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CO
%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MOLECULAR
WEIGHT
DRY
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
ISOKINETIC
%
99.3
98.1
100.6
101.6
101.3
102.7
100.6
SCRUBBER OUTLET A
SOA-1
SOA-2
SOA-3
SOA-4
SOA-5
SOA-6
22 Sep
22 Sep
23 Sep
23 Sep
24 Sep
24 Seo
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
Average
6137
6066
5992
6104
5846
5721
5978
174
172
170
173
166
162
170
5829
5713
5665
5743
5524
5376
5642
165
162
160
163
156
152
160
23
24
22
23
22
23
23
73
75
71
74
71
73
73
0.85
1.2
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.5
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
94.9
94.0
96.2
95.2
95.4
94.8
95.1
SCRUBBER OUTLET B
SOB-1
SOB-2
SOB-3
SOB-4
SOB-5
SOB-6
22 Sep
22 Sep
23 Sep
23 Sep
24 Sep
24 Sep
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
Average
5654
5650
6109
5919
5170
5096
160
160
173
168
146
144
5312
5301
5739
5532
4865
4755
150
150
163
157
138
135
24
26
23
26
23
25
75
78
73
78
73
77
1.6
.96
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.7
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
102.3
98.1
97.5
97.3
99.9
102.0
DEMISTER OUTLET
ME02
ME03
ME04
ME05
ME06
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
Average
11238
11651
11635
11456
11617
11519
318
330
329
324
329
326
10427
10958
10788
10680
10745
10720
295
310
305
302
304
303
29
26
30
27
30
28
85
79
86
81
86
83
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.6
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
98.6
98.1
99.6
99.7
97.7
98.7
-------
TABLE 3.3 SUMMARY OF HEXAVALENT AND TOTAL CHROMIUM EMISSIONS
SCRUBBER INLET
RUN
NO.
SCI-1
SCI-2
SCI-3
SCI-4
SCI-5
SCI-6
Aver
DATE
(1987)
22 Sep
22 Sep
23 Sep
23 Sep
24 Sep
24 Sep
'age
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
CONCENT
mg/dscm
1.99
2.35
3.78
1.74
0.80
1.61
2.05
[RATION
gr/dscf
.00087
.00102
.00165
.00760
.00035
.00070
.00203
MASS EMI
kg/hr
.038
.047
.071
.033
.015
.028
.039
[SSIONS
Ib/hr
.084
.103
.156
.072
.033
.063
.085
TOTAL CHROMIUM
CONCENT
mg/dscm
2.900
2.809
5.303
1.939
.859
1.932
2.624
[RATION
gr/dscf
.0013
.0012
.0023
.0008
.0004
.0008
.0011
MASS EMI
kg/hr
.056
.056
.099
.036
.016
.034
.050
SSIONS
Ib/hr
.1224
.1239
.2190
.080
.036
.075
.109
SCRUBBER OUTLET A
SOA-1
SOA-2
SOA-3
SOA-4
SOA-5
SOA-6
22 Sep
22 Sep
23 Sep
23 Sep
24 Sep
24 Sep
Average
.079
.215
.060
.192
.091
.123
.127
.00003
.00009
.00003
.00008
.00004
.00005
.00005
.0008
.0021
.0006
.0019
.0009
.0011
.0012
.0017
.0046
.0013
.0041
.0019
.0025
.0027
cu
SCRUBBER OUTLET B
SOB-1
SOB-2
SOB-3
SOB-4
SOB-5
SOB-6
22 Sep
22 Sep
23 Sep
23 Sep
24 Sep
24 Seo
Average
.137
.217
.066
.190
.088
.119
.136
.00006
.00009
.00003
.00008
.00004
.00005
.00006
.0012
.0020
.0006
.0018
.0007
.0010
.0010
.0027
.0043
.0014
.0039
.0016
.0021
.0027
DEMISTER OUTLET
RUN #1 NOT PERFORMED
ME02
ME03
ME04
ME05
ME06
Avei
22 Sep
23 Sep
23 Sep
24 Sep
24 Sep
"aqe
.136
.048
.118
.054
.050
.081
.00006
.00002
.00005
.00002
.00002
10OOO3
.0024
.0009
.0022
.0010
.0009
.0015
.0053
.0020
.0048
.0022
.0020
.OO33
-------
3.1.1.2 Hexavalent Chromium Emissions (Scrubber Inlet)
The hexavalent chromium emissions for each test run (see
Table 3.3) vary, but plating conditions also varied. Note
that in the table that total chromium emissions were given
for the inlet location only. Only the inlet samples were
analyzed for total chromium. Also note that only runs two
through six are listed at the demister outlet. This is
because the first run at the demister outlet was not per-
formed since screening method equipment was not available
at that location at that time.
At the scrubber inlet, emissions averaged 2.05
milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (.00089 grains per
dry standard cubic foot) and 0.039 kilograms per hour
(.085 pounds per hour).
3.1.1.3 Total Chromium Emissions (Scrubber Inlet)
The total chromium emissions for each test run (see
Table 3.3) for the inlet tests averaged 2.624 milligrams per
dry standard cubic meter (.0011 grain per dry standard cubic
foot) and .050 kilograms per hour (.121 pounds per hour).
3.1.2 Scrubber Outlet
The scrubber outlet represents the controlled emissions
from plating tanks No. 1, 2, 3, and 7. Two vertical ducts
were sampled simultaneously at the outlet location (the two
ducts merged into a single duct at the demister inlet).
Prior to testing, the ducts were checked for cyclonic flow
and gave average angles of deviation of 11.6° for duct A and
7° for duct B. This is well within the maximum allowable
angle of deviation of 20° as specified in Reference Method 1.
3-7
-------
3.1.2.1 Flue Gas Conditions and Isokinetic Sampling Rate
(Scrubber Outlets A & B)
A summary of flue gas conditions at the scrubber inlet,
scrubber outlet, and demister outlet is presented in Table
3.2. The volumetric flow rate of the scrubber outlet A loca-
tion had a higher flow rate than scrubber outlet B, (5641 vs
5251 average DSCF/.M) but the two volumes added together
almost equal to the scrubber inlet volume or the demister
outlet volume. (Volumetric flow rates are actually much
closer than would normally be expected on a source test).
The flue gas temperature averaged 73°F for scrubber outlet
A and B. The oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide
concentrations were that of ambient air at 20.9, 0.0, and
0.0 percent respectively. The volumetric flow rates averaged
5641 dry standard cubic feet per minute (338,460 dry standard
cubic feet per hour) at scrubber outlet A and 5251 dry
standard cubic feet per minute (315,060 dry standard cubic
feet per hour) at scrubber outlet B. Combining these two
locations gives the total average scrubber outlet flow rate
of 10,892 dry standard cubic feet per minute (653,520 dry
standard cubic feet per hour).
The isokinetic sampling rates were well within the
allowable range for all runs.
3.1.2.2 Hexavalent Chromium Emissions (Scrubber Outlets A & B)
At scrubber outlet A, hexavalent chromium emissions
averaged 0.127 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
(.00005 grains per dry standard cubic foot) and 0.0012
kilograms per hour (0.0027 pounds per hour.
At scrubber outlet B, hexavalent chromium emissions
averaged 0.136 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
(.00006 grains per dry standard cubic foot) and 0.0010
kilograms per hour (0.0027 pounds per hour.
3-8
-------
Total scrubber outlet emissions can be determined by
combining the values determined for scrubber outlet A and
scrubber outlet B. The milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter and the grains per dry standard cubic foot will remain
relatively the same; however, the mass emission rates will
approximately double since the kilograms per hour at each
location (A&B) are added. Thus, the combined A and B
milligrams per dry standard cubic meter are 0.131 (.000057
grains per dry standard cubic foot) and the kilograms per
hour emission rate is .0024 (.0054 pounds per hour).
3.1.2.3 Total Chromium Emissions (Scrubber Outlets A&B)
Total chromium emissions were not determined for this
location.
3.1.3 Demister Outlet
The demister outlet represents the final controlled
emissions from plating tanks No. 1, 2, 3, and 7. Emissions
from this location are those that are emitted to the
atmosphere. This vertical duct met the criteria specified in
Reference Method 1. The duct was checked for cyclonic flow
prior to sampling and the average angle of deflection was
12°, which was less than the 20° angle of deflection allowed
in Reference Method 1.
3.1.3.1 Flue Gas Conditions and Isokinetic Sampling Rate
{Demister Outlet)
A summary of flue gas conditions at the scrubber inlet,
scrubber outlet, and demister outlet is presented in Table
3.2. The demister outlet volumetric flow rate averaged 10720
dry standard cubic feet per minute (643,200 dry standard
cubic feet per hour) with an average stack temperature of
83°F and a moisture content of 1.7 percent. The stack gas
composition was that of ambient air.
3-9
-------
The isokinetic sampling rates were well within the
allowable range for all runs.
3.1.3.2 Hexavalent Chromium Emissions (Demister Outlet)
At the demister outlet hexavalent chromium emission
averaged 0.081 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
(0.00003 grains per dry standard cubic foot) and 0.0015
kilogram per hour (.0033 pounds per hour).
3.1.3.3 Total Chromium Emissions (Demister Outlet)
Total chromium emissions were not determined at this
location.
3.2 SCREENING METHOD INTRODUCTION
Prior to this test, developmental work has been
progressing in an effort to find an inexpensive screening
method for chromium six. The method would be used in place
of Method 13-B sampling to provide an approximate mass emis-
sion number and hopefully provide accuracy within +50
percent.
Early efforts in this project involved detector tubes,
midget impingers, and cassette filters as a means of deter-
mining chromium six concentrations. The detector tubes
proved to be too difficult to use and too insensitive to the
range of concentrations encountered. Midget impingers were
also disguarded since the majority of the chromic acid
collected was caught prior to the impinger solution. The
cassette filter appears to offer the most promise of the
three aforementioned techniques. The cassette filters are
the same as those worn by employees in a workplace that is
3-10
-------
being sampled for pollutants. (The sample is drawn into the
cassette holder/filter assembly by a personal sampling pump
worn by the individual).
Initial efforts with the cassette filters gave
encouraging results. Subsequent tests using the cassette
filters were plagued with problems - primarily leaks in the
apparatus, imprecise sampling volumes, and poor sample
recovery. As the project progressed, sample recovery was
improved and apparatus leaks were eliminated. Hypodermic
needles will be used in future test efforts to control the
flow.
In addition to cassette filters, 8 inch pieces of 1/8"
I.D. TeflonR tubing were used to collect samples. The tubing
appears to work as well as the cassette filter and holder and
if successful, the tubing will be much easier and less expen-
sive to use than the cassette filter and holder.
3.2.1 Screening Method Procedure and Results
A description of the screening method efforts for the
test work at Roll Technology Corporation follows. The dis-
cussion is a memo that was sent to people associated with the
chromium sampling programs and the screening method. In
addition to the memo, Table 3.3 summarizes screening method
results.
3-11
-------
3.2.2 MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Screening Method Results from Roll Technology
Corporation
FROM: Frank R. Clay
Emission Measurement Branch
TO: Chromium Electroplaters General File
The screening method samples taken at Roll Technology
Corporation (formerly Carolina Platers) are the best in the
series to be performed by the Emission Measurement Branch.
Sample results are all the same order of magnitude and there
appears to be a modicum of consistency to the data. While
the degree of accuracy of the method is not what is desired,
there are steps that can be taken to improve accuracy, and
the effort is, at least, encouraging.
It appears that several of the earlier problems with the
method have been solved. The waiting period between sample
collections and sample results has been eliminated by
performing sample analysis on site. It also appears that
problems due to poor sample recovery technique have been
eliminated as well. The major problem that remains is that
of sample volume.
An effort was made prior to the test at Roll Technology
to insure accurate sample volumes. Before the test, all
ThomasR pumps were run for one hour while being connected to
a wet test meter. The sampling apparatus (cassette filter or
TeflonR tubing) was also connected to the pump. Wet test
meter volumes were determined and corrected for temperature
and pressure to ascertain the standard cubic feet per hour
sampling rate. The rotameter adjustment knobs were then
fixed into position by using silicone rubber cement. The
sample volumes determined in the laboratory were used for
field calculations of chromium concentrations from screening
method runs. Upon return from the field, the pumps were run
3-12
-------
again in the laboratory to see if the sample volumes were
unchanged. Unfortunately, they were not, and the true
volumes sampled in the field remain unknown.
Although the true volumes sampled in the field remain
unknown, some of the pumps were relatively close when a
comparison was made between the initial volume and the post
test volume. The closest inlet number was 2 percent high,
and the closest outlet number was 3 percent low. (This
comparison uses the initial numbers as the standard or
numerator.) The largest variation for the inlet pumps was 53
percent low while the greatest variation at the outlet was
47 percent low.
Three of the eight pumps used for the screening samples
were fairly close in pretest and post-test volumes. One was
at the inlet and two were at the outlet. If it is possible
to consider data from these three pumps as good (which it
probably is not), then comparing these numbers with the
Method 13-B values may give some indication as to how
accurate the screening method is.
The accuracy range of the inlet pump varied from 84
percent below the Method 13-B number to 395 percent above
the 13-B number. The average of the positive and negative
percent values is 73.7. The absolute average is 112.8.
Either way, the values are something greater than the desired
accuracy of ± 50 percent.
At the outlet, two of the pumps had volumes after the
test that were close to the original volumes determined prior
to the test. Emission numbers determined from these pumps
varied from 31.0 percent to +121 percent for one of the pumps
and 5.7 percent to 119.2 percent for the other pump. The
average absolute values for these two pumps were 54.9 and 54
percent respectively, and the average of the values was 42.5
and 54 percent respectively.
3-13
-------
During the last run of the test, two spare pumps were
operated at the outlet in addition to the four regular pumps.
The spare pumps were run for 292 minutes (4 hrs 52 minutes).
These pumps did not incorporate surge tanks or rotameters as
used on the regular screening trains, but simply ran at
maximum capacity during the run. Tapered tubes were used for
sample extraction, and while the spare pumps were similar in
size, one pump sampled a volume about ten times that of the
other.
Without a surge tank on the inlet side of the pump, the
net effect of the pump is to extract a sample, but in the
process, the pump pulses and puffs in the inlet direction.
This may make it difficult to determine the direction of flow
of the pump and is probably the reason that one of two pumps
that sampled at maximum volume had the flow direction marked
backwards. As a result of this mismarking of the pump, the
pump was hooked up backwards. Thus, ambient air was being
pumped into the outlet stack instead of being extracted from
it. Nevertheless, the sample collected from this train was
within 75 percent of the real concentration determined from
the 13-B train and was low by only 25 percent. The other
pump, through extracting a smaller sample, sampled in the
right direction and was only 2 percent greater than the real
(13-B) number.
Data from the two unrestricted pumps were based on a
sample rate determined in the lab from 15 minutes of pump
operation. During the test, these two pumps ran for over 4
hours, so a 15-minute run may not have given an accurate
sampling volume. The variation, however, would not have been
sufficient to change the data significantly. Thus, the pump
that blew ambient air into the stack provided some of the
most accurate data of all.
3-14
-------
From the above discussion of the two pumps, it is
possible to conclude that it is more accurate to extract a
sample from the stack rather than to blow ambient air into it
if the determination of chrome 6 concentrations is the goal.
This is just another way in which science works for you here
at the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
If the percent error of the screening run concentra-
tions is averaged, it is possible to see how close the
screening method comes overall to the concentration
determined from the Method 13-B trains. The average and
absolute average have been determined for each location using
the two sets of ThomasR pump volumetric flow rates deter-
mined in the lab both before and after the test.
At the inlet, the average error of the screening method
during the test, when compared to the 13-B concentrations,
was +59.6 percent. The value of the absolute average was +93
percent. After the test (and using post-test sampling
volumes) the average error at the inlet was 143 percent and
the value of the absolute average was 172.5 percent.
At the outlet, the averages looked much better. The
average error of the screening method during the test, when
compared with the 13-B concentrations, was +40.3 percent.
The value of the absolute average was 49.2 percent. After
the test (and using post-test sampling volumes) the average
error at the outlet was 32.4 percent while the value of the
absolute average was 43.9 percent.
The range of the numbers varied quite a bit. For the
inlet location during the test, percents varied from a high
of +404 percent to a low of -87.1 percent. Using the volumes
determined after the test, inlet values varied from a high of
787.4 percent to a low of 83.9 percent.
At the outlet, the range was smaller. During the test,
the percents varied from a high of 125.4 percent to a low of
3-15
-------
-30.8 percent. Using sample volumes determined in the lab
after the test, values ranged from a high of +121 percent to
a low of -40.7 percent.
Clearly, the inlet numbers are less accurate than the
outlet numbers. Normally, this would not be expected since
inlet concentrations are higher than the outlet and a larger
sample is usually more accurate. There may be many reasons
for this anomaly. The inlet location was very poor and did
not meet the criteria of Reference Method I. It is also
possible that the point of average velocity was not sampled.
The outlet, on the other hand, was an ideal location with a
better velocity profile. At the outlet, even a point that
was not of average velocity would probably give good results.
For the next phase of this project, some procedural
changes will be made. First, no sample will be taken without
determining that the sample point represents a point of
average velocity. Second, only samples using tapered tubing
will be collected and tubing holders will be modified to
insure that the tubing faces directly.into the stack flows.
Third, only hypodermic needles encased in epoxy will be used
as flow regulating devices. Needle gauge will be chosen
based on velocities determined on the pretest survey visit.
Fourth, pump volumes will be determined in the lab before and
after the test with each pump in its sampling configuration.
Fifth, the same sample recovery procedures that were used in
Greenville, SC, will be used again.
For the next test, only tapered tubing will be used to
collect the samples. This is not because the tapered tubing
is better for collecting a sample than the cassette filter,
but it is easier to use. On the upcoming test, the goal will
be to achieve reproducibility first and accuracy second.
Using all tapered tubing samples will also give a better
statistical number.
3-16
-------
Hypodermic needles give accurate and reproducible
volumes in the lab - even when used with our worn out pumps.
It is possible to select one of three needle gauges to sample
within ±30 percent isokinetic of the range of flow
encountered in chromium plating operations. (The gauge size
assumes a 1/8" diameter tapered tube.) A cassette filter
will be used as a protective device for the hypodermic
needle, and gauge size for the next test will be determined
when the test site is selected and the pretest survey has
been completed. Prior to the test, ThomasR pumps will be
checked for sample volumes in the test apparatus configura-
tion, and during the 13-B test runs at the facility, an
attempt will be made to get 8 one- hour samples at both the
inlet and outlet locations. This will provide a total of 24
samples at each location. Upon return to the lab, ThomasR
pumps will again be checked for sample volume.
If the upcoming test work is successful, there are some
questions that still remain. How specifically, will the
screening method be used? Will there be a specification as
to tank loading and amperes that must be met before the
screening method can be used? Lastly, if the technique is
successful, how much additional testing will be needed to
show that the method is accurate?
cc: John Brown (MD-19)
Bill DeWees (Entropy)
Bill Grimley (MD-19)
Gail Lacy (MD-13)
Robin Segal1 (Entropy)
Randy Straight (MRI)
Al Vervaert (MD-13)
3-17
-------
The following tables summarize the results of the
screening runs using the pump volumes before and after the test
at Roll Technology. In looking at the tables, the screening
method percent of the Method 13-B train is given in the Percent
of Real Value column. Thus a percent of real value number of
138.8 would mean that the screening value was 138.8 percent of
the Method 13-B value. To the right of the Percent of Real
Value column is the Percent High or Low column. This value is
the difference between the Method 13-B run and the screening
run. A screening value of 71 percent of the real value (Method
13-B) would be 29 percent low which is given in the table of
-29 percent.
When the four screening runs are averaged and compared
with the corresponding Method 13-B run, a mathematical average
can be determined. The mathematical average does not always
reflect the true difference between the screening method and
the Method 13-B runs. (If two screening samples were 50
percent low and two were 50 percent high, the mathematical
average would be zero.) The righthand column of the chart
gives the absolute average of the difference between the Method
13-B run and the screening samples showing the variation of the
screening average from the 13-B number.
3-18
-------
RUN
NO.
1
1
1
1
1
Ave
2
2
2
2
2
Ave
3
3
3
3
3
Ave
4
4
4
4
4
Ave
5
5
5
5
5
Ave
6
6
6
6
6
Ave
SAMPLE
NUMBER
1ITT1
1ITT2
1ICC1
1ICCL2
SI-1
2ITT1
2ITT2
2ICC1
2ICCL2
SI-2
3ITT1
3ITT2
3ICC1
3ICCL2
SI-3
4ITT1
4ITT2
4ICC1
4ICC12
SI-4
5ITT1
5ITT2
5ICC1
5ICC12
SI-5
6ITT1
6ITT2
6ICC1
6ICC12
SI-6
SAMPLE TYPE
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassette Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassette Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassette Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassete Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassete Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassete Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
SCREENING
Mg/M3
2.76
2.61
3.50
2.60
2.87
4.684
11.819
9.845
4.708
7.764
.2432
.3099
.2970
.4115
.3154
1.2353
1.1801
1.3658
.5538
1.0838
.3924
.2700
1.0367
.7921
.6228
1.6484
1.6492
1.6949
.9219
1.4786
M13B,
Mg/M3
1.988
1.988
2.345
2.345
3.778
3.778
1.739
1.739
.795
.795
*
1.610
1.610
PERCENT OF
REAL VALUE
138.8
131.3
176.1
130.8
144.2
199.7
504.0
419.8
200.8
331.1
6.4
8.2
7.9
10.9
8.3
71.0
67.9
78.5
31.8
62.3
49.4
34.0
130.4
99.6
78.3
102.4
102.4
105.3
57.3
91.8
(Mathematical
Average)
PERCENT HIGH
OR LOW
+ 38.8
+ 31.3
+ 76.1
+ 30.8
44.2
+ 99.7
+404.0
+319.8
+100.8
+231.1
- 93.6
- 91.8
- 92.1
- 89.1
- 91.7
- 29.0
- 32.1
- 21.5
- 68.2
- 37.7
- 50.6
- 66.. 0
- 30.4
- 0.4
- 21.7
2.4
2.4
5.3
- 42.7
- 8.2
(Absolute
Average)
PERCENT HIGH
OR LOW
44.2
231.1
91.7
37.7
36.9
13.2
-------
SCREENING METHOD RESULTS VS. METHOD 13-B RESULTS (OUTLET LOCATION - BEFORE TEST PUMP VOLUMES)
RUN
NO.
1
1
1
1
1
Ave
2
2
2
2
2
Ave
3
3
3
3
3
Ave
4
4
4
4
4
Ave
5
5
5
5
5
Ave
6
6
6
6
6
SAMPLE
NUMBER
20TT1
20TT2
20CC1
20CCL2
ME02
30TT1
30TT2
30CC1
30CCL2
ME03
/
40TT1
40TT2
40CC1
40CC12
ME04
50TT1
50TT2
50CC1
50CC12
ME05
60TT1
60TT2
60CC1
60CC12
ME06
SAMPLE TYPE
THIS TEST NOT PERFORMED
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassette Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassette Cone Long Nozzle 2
13B
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassete Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassete Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassete Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
SCREENING
Mg/M3
.1986
.2401
.2645
.2432
.2366
.0445
.0430
.0335
.0750
.0490
.1411
.1815
.1431
.1513
.1543
.0388
.0488
.0596
.0646
.0530
.0953
.0776
.1118
.1136
M13B.
Mg/M3
.1355
.1355
.0484
.0484
.1180
.1180
.0594
.0594
t
.0544
.0544
.0504
PERCENT OF
REAL VALUE
146.6
177.2
195.2
179.5
174.6
91.9
88.8
69.2
155.0
101.2
119.6
153.8
121.3
128.2
130.7
65.3
82.2
100.3
108.8
89.2
- 189.1
154.0
221.8
225.4
(Mathematical
Average)
PERCENT HIGH
OR LOW
46.6
77.2
95.2
79.5
74.6
- 8.1
- 11.2
- 30.8
- 55.0
- 1.2
19.6
53.8
21.3
28.2
30.7
- 34.7
- 17.8
0.3
8.8
- 10.9
89.1
54.0
121.8
125.4
(Absolute
Average)
PERCENT HIGH
OR LOW
74.6
26.2
30.7
15.4
-------
RUN
NO.
1
1
1
1
1
Ave
2
2
2
2
2
Ave
3
3
3
3
3
Ave
4
4
4
4
4
Ave
5
5
5
5
5
Ave
6
6
6
6
6
Ave
SAMPLE
NUMBER
1ITT1
1ITT2
1ICC1
1ICCL2
SI-1
2ITT1
2ITT2
2ICC1
2ICCL2
SI-2
3ITT1
3ITT2
3ICC1
3ICCL2
SI-3
4ITT1
4ITT2
4ICC1
4ICC12
SI-4
5ITT1
5ITT2
5ICC1
5ICC12
SI-5
6ITT1
6ITT2
6ICC1
6ICC12
SI-6
SAMPLE TYPE
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassette Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassette Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassette Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassete Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassete Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassete Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
SCREENING
Mg/M3
4.551
2.569
7.395
3.327
4.461
7.710
11.617
20.809
6.033
11.542
.801
.609
1.256
1.054
.9300
4.067
2.320
5.774
1.419
3.395
1.292
.531
4.383
2.030
2.059
5.427
3.242
7.165
2.362
4.549
M13B,
Mg/M3
1.988
1.988
2.345
2.345
3.778
3.778
1.739
1.739
.795
.795
1.610
1.610
PERCENT OF
v REAL VALUE
228.9
129.2
372.0
167.4
224.4
328.8
495.4
887.4
257.3
492.2
21.2
16.1
33.2
27.9
24.6
233.9
133.4
332.0
81.6
195.2
162.5
66.8
551.3
255.3
259.0
337.1
201.4
445.0
146.7
282.6
(Mathematical
Average)
PERCENT HIGH
OR LOW
128.9
29.2
272.0
67.4
124.4
+228.8
395.4
787.4
157.3
392.2
- 78.8
- 83.9
- 66.8
- 72.1
- 75.4
133.9
33.4
232.0
18.4
95.2
62.5
- 33.2
451.3
155.3
159.0
237.1
101.4
345.0
46.7
182.5
(Absolute
Average)
PERCENT HIGH
OR LOW
124.4
392.2
75.4
104.4
175.6
182.5
-------
SCREENING METHOD RESULTS VS. METHOD 13-B RESULTS (OUTLET LOCATION - AFTER TEST PUMP VOLUMES)
RUN
NO.
1
1
1
1
1
Ave
2
2
2
2
2
Ave
3
3
3
3
. 3
Ave
4
4
4
4
4
Ave
5
5
5
5
5
Ave
6
6
6
6
6
SAMPLE
NUMBER
20TT1
20TT2
20CC1
20CCL2
ME02
30TT1
30TT2
30CC1
30CCL2
ME03
i
40TT1
40TT2
40CC1
40CC12
ME04
50TT1
50TT2
50CC1
50CC12
ME05
60TT1
60TT2
60CC1
60CC12
ME06
SAMPLE TYPE
THIS TEST NOT PERFORMED
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassette Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassette Cone Long Nozzle 2
13B
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassete Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassete Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
Tapered Tube 1
Tapered Tube 2
Cassette Cone 1
Cassete Cone Long Nozzle 2
13-B
SCREENING
Mg/M3
.1348
.2131
.2731
.2303
.2128
.0403
.0438
.0334
.0729
.0476
.1279
.1847
.1426
.1472
.1499
.0352
.0496
.0594
.0628
'.0518
.0864
.0789
.1114
.1105
M13B,
Mg/M3
.1355
.1355
.0484
.0484
.1180
.1180
.0594
.0594
.0504
PERCENT OF
REAL VALUE
99.5
157.3
201.5
170.0
174.6
157.1
83.3
90.5
69.0
150.6
98.3
108.4
156.5
120.8
124.7
127.6
59.3
83.5
100.0
105.7
87.1
171.4
156.5
221.0
219.2
i *-> o •»
(Mathematical
Average)
PERCENT HIGH
OR LOW
0.5
57.3
101.5
70.0
57.1
- 16.7
- 9.5
- 31.0
50.6
- 1.7
8.4
56.5
20.8
24.7
27.6
- 40.7
- 16.5
0.0
5.7
- 12.9
71.4
56.5
121.0
119.2
. ..... . .""•* ~-» - •-
(Absolute
Average)
PERCENT HIGH
OR LOW
57.3
27.0
27.6
15.7
co
i
ro
ro
-------
4.0 SAMPLING LOCATIONS
The test program consisted of simultaneous sampling of
the inlet to the scrubber, the outlet of the scrubber (two
ducts) and the outlet from the mist eliminator. The purpose
of sampling these four sites was to collect data in order to
»
compare the results of the Screening Method with the results
from the MM13B. To maintain sample integrity, EPA Reference
Methods 1-5 were adhered to as closely as possible and
Method 13-B was modified to achieve consistency with other
test programs. A flow diagram illustrating the sampling
locations on the emission control devices servicing chromium
plating Tanks 1, 2, 3, and 7 at the ROLL TECHNOLOGY facility
is shown in Figure 4.1. No calculations are presented in
this test program description; however, the field data sheets
from this program are presented, by sample location, in
Appendix B.
4.1 SCRUBBER INLET
Emission sampling was performed on the duct leading from
the plating tanks to the scrubber. The duct was 36 inches in
diameter and had a straight run of approximately 48 inches.
Two sampling ports were installed by the test crew and were
situated such that one port was located in the horizontal
plane and the other was located 90° from the horizontal.
The location of one of the sampling ports required that a
vertical traverse be made during each of the runs. To
accomplish this, a chain hoist was suspended from a platform
over the horizontal duct. Since the duckwork did not meet
the minimum length specifications of Reference Method 1,
the parts were located 0.8 of the distance downstream from
the vertical elbow. This was 38.4 inches and maintained the
4-1
-------
Mist
Eliminator Outlet
n/
Divided
Scrubberj
Outlet _X
Duct
Roof
xx/ s/sx
Floor
x.
XX X XXX X X X X XX X
Scrubber
/NAPCO .
Scrubber I
\ /
XXxXXXX X XX X^X X XX
Tank
*7
Tank
13
Tank
12
XXX
Tank;
#1
Mezzanine
XXX
Figure 4-1
Simplified Process Flow Diagram Shewing
Proposed Sample Port Location.
4-2
-------
4 to 1 downstream ratio found in Reference Method 1
(See Figure 4.2).
The number of traverse points for the inlet was 24.
This determination of the total number of traverse points
was based on an earlier testing program where the velocity
profile did not indicate the presence of'cyclonic or
turbulent flow. However, a verification of the absence of
cyclonic or turbulent flow was conducted during the collec-
tion of preliminary flow data. Each traverse point was
sampled for 5.0 minutes for a total test time of 120 minutes.
After the samples from the MM13B were collected, they were
analyzed for Cr+6 concentration.
4.2 SCRUBBER OUTLET (MIST ELIMINATOR INLET)
Gases exit from the scrubber through either of two
parallel-ducts which join into one common duct just prior to
the mist eliminator. Emission sampling was performed on each
of the 23-inch diameter ducts prior to joining to the common
duct. Sampling at this location almost allowed the minimum
sampling criteria to be met, and was considerably better than
sampling in the common duct after the two ducts joined. The
two ducts were sampled simultaneously, and a total of 24
traverse points were sampled at each of these two sites.
Sampling time per point was 5.0 minutes, for a total test
time of 120 minutes at each site. Secure sampling platforms
for these sites were erected using lumber and scaffolding.
(For port location, see Figure 4.3)
.4-3
-------
MS TP/AVEP5E PQ!NT5
12 POINTS/ AXIS
24 TOTAL POINTS
36"
VELOCITY TPAVEPSE POINTS
!2 PC?NT3/AXi3
2* TOTAL PC.NTS
SECTiQN L-L
L 41
TO SCRUBBER'
FROM CHROMIUM /
PIATJNG TANKS I
36"
U
38.4—>
TOP VIEW
O A
ii
SIDE VIEW
FROM CHROMIUM
PLATING TANKS
II
FIGURE 4-2 5C5UB8E.R JNLET ( SAMPUNG IOCAT:QN
4-4
-------
ROLL TECHNOLOGY
SCRUBBER ". OUTLET LOCPTIONS
23
PORTS
i .
i
-
^.
>%
•--•
\n
•
+j
V
1
i
t> j
Y
// —
-
'3 G
— //
*•
t
If/
(
.
^ !
i
-i-
w
*
±_
f — //- — 1
' I
0 e
— //
SCRUBBER
OUTLET R
- SCRUBBER
OUTLET B
FIGURE 4.3
4-5
-------
4.3 MIST ELIMINATOR OUTLET
Emission sampling was conducted on the outlet from the
mist eliminator downstream of the fan. This site required
some modifications to meet the minimum sampling point
location criteria. Modifications were made with a "stack
extension" fabricated and installed by KCH Services, Inc.,
the manufacturer of the mist eliminator. This stack
extension included a transition duct from rectangular to a
22-inch diameter duct that was 8 feet in length. Drawings of
the existing duct configuration and the modifications that
were made to the mist eliminator outlet are presented in
Figures 4*4 and 4.5. The total number of sample points
for this location was 24 and the sample time per point 5.0
minutes for a total test time of 120 minutes. A secure
sampling platform was erected with scaffolding that was
rented locally.
4-6
-------
Moisture extractor
\
Transition
duct
Fan
no tor
Hoof top
Fan
housing
Air flew
Mist
Eliminator
Figure 4.4
Existing Mist Eliminator Outlet At
ROLL Technology Corp.
4-7
-------
Cross sectional location
of sarnple ports
Port B
Mist
eliminator
Stack di«aeter
Transition
duct
Fan
Jtotor
toftop
Fan
Air flow
Mist
ellninator
•*/
Figure 4.5 modifications to the mist eliminator
outlet at ROLL TECHNOLOGY CXHPOHATION.
4-8
-------
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The goal of the quality assurance activities for this
project is to ensure, to the highest degree possible, the
accuracy of data collected. The procedures contained in the
"Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement
Systems," Volume III, "Stationary Source Specific Methods,"
EPA-600/4-77-027B served as the basis for performance of all
testing and related work activities that were undertaken in
this testing program. In addition to the quality assurance
measure guidelines presented above, specific quality assur-
ance activities were conducted for several of the individual
testing activities that were performed; these are presented
in the paragraphs that follow.
5.2 FIELD QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES
In order to assure a high level of quality control of
the sampling for the comparison of data from these two
methods, a field quality assurance program was followed for
the test program. Methods used to obtain the required level
of quality assurance are itemized below.
5.2.1 Sample Blanks
5.2.1.1 Reagent Blanks—
The 0.1N NaOH absorbing solution was transported to the
field in its "as purchased" container. When in the field,
the 0.1N NaOH was transferred to a polyethylene wash bottle.
»
From the wash bottle, the NaOH solution was used for sample
train preparation and recovery. A blank sample was collected
5-1
-------
from the solution in the wash bottle. This sample was given
to the on-site laboratory personnel, with the emission
samples, and analyzed in the same manner. One blank was
collected daily.
5.2.2 "Spiked" Samples
A Cr+6 stock standard solution was made up in the
laboratory. This stock solution was used to make up samples
of known concentrations. The resultant samples were used to
prepare random "spiked" samples which were analyzed for QA/QC
check purposes.
5.2.3 Emissions Samples
One sample per day from the MM13B emission sampling was
split, volume permitting, in the field to produce a duplicate
sample. The minimum volume required for analysis was 200
milliliters. This sample was submitted as a "blind"
duplicate.
5.2.4 Chain of Custody
In an effort to maintain the integrity of all samples
taken at the test facility, a detailed chain of custody
procedure was followed. A copy of the "Chain of Custody"
data sheets are included in Appendix B. These sheets include
the sample identification, date of sample recovery, name of
person who performed the recovery, place of recovery as well
as the name of the responsible person from the analytical
group who is taking custody of the samples. Once the samples
were placed in custody of the analytical group, that group
was to provide for safe storage and maintenance of records
sufficient to maintain sample integrity.
5-2
-------
5.3 SAMPLING TRAIN COMPONENTS
The equipment used in this test program, including
nozzles, pitot tubes, dry gas meters, orifices, and
thermocouples were uniquely identified and were calibrated
in accordance with calibration procedures specified in the
applicable EPA Reference Method prior to and at the comple-
tion of the testing program.
5.4 LABORATORY ANALYSIS
In addition to quality assurance activities in the
field, the laboratory QA techniques will be a requirement.
Since the laboratory selected to perform the on-site analyses
was Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., quality assurance
activities followed those outlined in the Entropy Environ-
mentalist, Inc.'s, "Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan."
5-3
------- |