United QtatM
Environmental Protection
Agtncy
Office of Air Quality
Panning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EMB Report 31-CEP-18
Vduma I
Oacamber 1991
Air
Hexavalent Chromium
Emission Test Report

Precision Engineering Company
Seattle, Washington
           e of Air

-------
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM EMISSION EVALUATION

          PRECISION ENGINEERING, INC.
              SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
                      Prepared for
        U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
            EMISSION MEASUREMENT BRANCH
       RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA

               EPA Contract No. 68-D-90155
                   DECEMBER 31, 1992
                      Prepared by

            ADVANCED SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC.
              3490 Piedmont Road, NE • Suite 1410
                   Atlanta, GA 30305-4810
                      (404)240-2930

-------
                               TABLE OF  CONTENTS

                       **##*********************++****************************

Sections                                                                           Pages

            TABLES and FIGURES

            EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                                 i-iii

 Section 1    INTRODUCTION  	         1-1

 Section 2    PROCESS OPERATION 	         2-1

       2.1   Process Description	         2-1
       2.2   Air Pollution Control Device	         2-2
       2.3   Process Conditions During Testing	         2-4

Section 3    SUMMARY OF SAMPLE COLLECTION,
            EMISSION CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS	   3-1

       3.1   Sample Collection	         3-1
       3.2   Stack Gas Parameters	         3-1
       3.3   Emission Calculations and Discussion of Results	         3-2
       3.3.1 Cr-VI Results From Colorimetry and ICPCR Analyses	         3-4
       3.3.2 Total Chromium Results From ICP Analysis	         3-4
       3.3.3 Concentrations In Plating Tank Solution,
             MPME Water and Train Blank Samples	         3-8
       3.3.4 Computerized Spreadsheet Calculations	         3-8
       3.3.5 Removal Efficiency of The Mesh Pad Mist Eliminator	         3-8
       3.3.6 Penetration of The Mesh  Pad Mist Eliminator	         3-10

Section 4    SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS	         4-1

       4.1   Types of Samples Collected and Sample Recovery Descriptions	         4-1
       4.1.1 Liquid Grab Samples	         4-1
       4.1.2 Gaseous Stack Samples	         4-1
       4.1.3 Sampling Locations	         4-2
       4.2   Air Sampling Test Methods	         4-7
       4.2.1 Traverse Points	         4-7
       4.2.2 Stack Gas Velocity	         4-7
       4.2.3 Stack Gas Moisture	         4-7
       4.2.4 Modified Method 13-B Sampling Train	         4-8
       4.3   Sample Analysis Methods	         4-8
       4.3.1 Colorimetry	         4-10
       4.3.2 Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP)	         4-10
       4.3.3 lon-Cnromatography With Post Column Reactor (ICPCR)	         4-10

Section 5    QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM, TEST PROGRAM
            PERSONNEL AND SUMMARY OF FIELD  ACTIVITIES	         5-1

       5.1   Quality Assurance Program	         5-1
       5.2   Data Review Prior To Report Preparation	         5-1
       5.3   Contract Laboratory Quality Assurance Procedures	         5-1
       5.4   Test Program Personnel	         5-2
       5.5   Field Activities	         5-3

-------
                            TABLES and FIGURES

Tables                                                                     Page

S-l    Summary of Chromium Removal Efficiencies	          iii

2.1    Average Operating Parameters Monitored
       During Each Mass Emissions Test Run	            2-6

2.2    Total Ampere-Hours Supplied to Plating
       Tanks During Mass Emission Test Runs	            2-7

3.1    Summary of Stack Gas Conditions	            3-3

3.2    Comparison of Emission Sample Analysis
       Results For Chromium-VI Using
       Colorimetry and ICPCR Techniques	             3-5

3.3    Analytical Results of Chromium-VI
       Mass Emission Testing	            3-6

3.4    Analytical Results of Total Chromium
       Mass Emission Testing	            3-7

3.5    Analysis of Plating Tank Solutions, MPME
       Water and Blank Samples	            3-9

3.6    Summary of the Mesh Pad Mist Eliminator
       Chromium Removal Efficiencies	            3-11

3.7    Removal Efficiency and Percent Penetration
       of Chromium Through the
       Mesh Pad Mist  Eliminator	            3-12


                             ***********************
Jlgures

2.1    Schematic of Ventilation and Control System
       for Chromium Plating Tanks at Precision
       Engineering, Inc	            2-3

4.1    Inlet No.  1 Traverse Point Locations	       4-4

4.2    Inlet No. 2 Traverse Point Locations	       4-5

4.3    Outlet Traverse  Point Locations	            4-6

4.4    Schematic of the Modified U.S. EPA
       Method 13-B Sampling Train	            4-9

-------
Appendices                                                                 Page


    A  Computer Printout of Field Data	        A-l - A-37


    B  Field Data Sheets	        B-l - B-40
    C  Sampling Sheets and Summary of Results
       (AST and U.S. EPA)	        C-l - C-17
    D  Laboratory Analysis Reports and
       Chain of Custody Forms	       D-l - D-8
    E  On-Site Colorimetric Analysis
       For Hexavalent Chromium	       E-l - E-12
   F  Sample Calculations	       F-l - F-8
    G  Draft Method - Determination of
       Hexavalent Chromium Emissions from
       Decorative and Hard Chrome Electroplating	        G-l - G-9
    H  Ampere-Hour Calculations	       H-l - H-26
    I   Laboratory Analysis Procedure Method
       of Determination of Cr-VI in Alkaline Solution	        I-1 -1-3
   J   Equipment Calibration Data	        J-l - J-9
   K  Determination of Total Chromium and
       Hexavalent Chromium Emissions from
       Stationary Sources (CARB425)	        K-l - K-22

-------
                             EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this project was to evaluate the chromium removal efficiency of the mesh pad




mist eliminator (MPME) system at Precision Engineering, Inc., in Seattle, Washington.  This




objective was achieved by  concurrently  measuring  hexavalent chromium (Cr-VI) and total




chromium (Cr-T) mass emissions at the inlets and outlet of a mesh pad mist eliminator (MPME)




using a modification of U.S. EPA Method 13-B.








During the field work, Precision Engineering, Inc. operated  three of its six plating  tanks.




Plating Tanks 1, 2 and 7 were being used to chrome plate pieces of industrial equipment. The




hood exhaust  ducting from tanks 1 and 2 were combined in a common duct and formed one leg




of the inlet (Inlet No. 1) to the MPME. Tank 7 was ducted separately,  forming the second leg




(Inlet  No. 2)  of the inlet to the MPME.  The MPME used for controlling chromium mass




emissions was located on the roof of the plant shop and  consisted of a set of chevron-blades




followed  by a series of three graded mesh pads.








Field testing was conducted  during the week of December 16, 1991. Sampling was performed




at the two inlets (Inlet No. 1  from Tanks 1 and 2 and Inlet No. 2 from Tank 7), and at the outlet




of the mesh pad mist eliminator (MPME) under its normal operating conditions for the plating




processes. Three separate isokinetic test runs were conducted  during field testing. Sampling




times  of 240 or 360 minutes assured  collection of adequate quantities of chromium for




subsequent chemical analysis.  In addition,  grab samples of MPME water and plating bath




solutions  were also obtained during each of the Method 13-B test runs for Cr-VI and Cr-T




analyses.

-------
Upon completion of each test run, the mass emission samples were recovered in the field,




labeled, and  stored in a  cooler.   Each sample was analyzed on-site for Cr-VI using the




diphenylcarbazide colorimetric method (see Appendix E).  Upon completion of field testing, all




samples were packed in  a cooler and transported to Research Triangle Institute Laboratory



(RTIL), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.  RTIL performed analysis for Cr-VI using lon-




Chromatography with a Post Column Reactor (ICPCR) and Cr-T using Inductively Coupled



Plasma (ICP).  Plating tank solution and MPME water samples were also analyzed for Cr-VI




and Cr-T at RTIL.








This project work has provided an opportunity to assess the accuracy of the analytical results




which form the basis to measure control device efficiencies.  Field samples were analyzed for




Cr-VI using the diphenylcarbazide colorimetric method on-site and later the same samples were



analyzed off-site with  ICPCR.   The analytical  data obtained were compared and indicate,




colorimetric and ICPCR methods gave overall similar results (see Section 3).








Table S-l summarizes the chromium removal efficiencies  for the  mesh pad mist eliminator




(MPME) system. Based upon the measurements performed during this project, the MPME has




an average chromium  removal efficiency of 96.0%.  The average total chromium (Cr-T)



concentration at Inlets  No. 1  and  No. 2 combined was 0.4970 mg/m3.  The total chromium




emission concentration  at the outlet averaged 0.0108 mg/m3. The average Cr-T  mass emission




rate from Inlets No. 1 and No. 2 combined was 1.50 x 10~2 Ib/hr and for outlet average was 5.75



x 10^* Ib/hr.  The average hexavalent chromium (Cr-VI) concentration at Inlets No. 1 and No.




2 combined was 0.4717 mg/m3 and for the outlet 0.0103 mg/m3. These averages translate into




Cr-VI mass emission rates of 1.430 x Itf2 Ib/hr and 5.48 x 1Q4 Ib/hr for the MPME inlets and



the outlet respectively.
                                          11

-------
                                  TABLE S-l
             SUMMARY OF CHROMIUM* REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Run No. 1
     Inlet**
     Outlet
                                 Mass Emission Rate
                                   (Ib/hr)
1.32x lO'2
6.75 x KT*
                             Removal Efficiency
94.9
Run No. 2

     Inlet**
     Outlet
1.25 x lO'2
5.53 x 10"*
95.6
Run No. 3

     Inlet**
     Outlet
1.93x lO'2
4.97 x 10"
97.4
     AVERAGE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
                               96.0
* Expressed as Total Chromium (Cr-T)
** Represents Sum of Inlet No. 1 and Inlet No. 2
                                      in

-------
                                      Section 1




                                 INTRODUCTION
The objective of this project was to evaluate the chromium removal performance of the mesh




pad mist eliminator  (MPME) system at Precision Engineering, Inc., in Seattle, Washington.




Chromium emission concentrations were measured at the two inlets (Inlet No. 1 and Inlet No.




2) and the outlet of the MPME to determine the efficiency of the system for chromium removal.








Testing  was conducted during the  week of December 16, 1991.  Emission  samples  were




collected using a modification of U.S. EPA Method 13-B.  This method is briefly described in




Section 4 of this report.  The emission samples were collected simultaneously from Inlets No.




1 and No.  2 and from the Outlet  of the MPME under normal operating conditions.  The




sampling locations are identified in Figure 2-1. MPME water samples and plating tank solution




samples were also collected under the normal operating conditions of  the MPME and plating




processes.








Samples were analyzed on-site, using the diphenylcarbazide method, for hexavalent chromium.




The plating  tank solution  samples  were analyzed off-site.  After the field activities were




completed,  the samples were  shipped to Research Triangle Institute  Laboratory (RTIL) for




chromium analyses. RTIL is located in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The Inlet and




Outlet samples were analyzed  at RTIL for total chromium  using Inductively Coupled Plasma




emission spectrometry  (ICP) and for hexavalent chromium  using lon-Chromatography with a




Post Column Reactor (ICPCR). MPME water samples and plating tank solution samples were




analyzed using ICPCR and ICP. The analytical techniques employed in this test program are




described in  Section 4 of this report.






                                         1-1

-------
The primary organizations involved in this test program were Advanced Systems Technology,




Inc. (AST), Precision Engineering, Inc. (PEI), Midwest Research Institute (MRI) and the U.S.




EPA, Emission Measurement Branch (EMB).
                                        1-2

-------
                                        Section 2




                               PROCESS OPERATION
2.1  Process Description




Precision  Engineering is a  medium-size job shop  that performs hard  chromium plating of




industrial rolls, hydraulic cylinders and miscellaneous small parts. The plating shop has six hard




chromium plating tanks.  The plating shop normally operates 24 hours per day, five days per



week.








During this  source test, tank Nos. 1, 2 and 7 were tested.  Plating tank Nos. 1 and 2 are



2.0-meters (m) (6.5-feet) [ft]) long, 1.3-m (4.2-ft) wide, and  3.7m (12.0 ft) deep and hold



approximately 9,280 liters (L) (2,450 gallons [gal]) of plating solution.  Plating tank No. 7 is



1.2-m (4.0-ft) long, 1.8-m  (5.9-ft) wide  and 5.5-m (18.0-ft) deep and holds approximately



11,830 L (3,120 gal)  of plating solution.  The plating solution contains chromic acid at a




concentration of about 250  grams per liter (g/L) (33 ounces per gallon [oz/gal]) of water.




Sulfuric acid is used as a catalyst at a bath concentration of 2.5 g/L (0.33 oz/gal).   The




temperature of the plating solution is maintained at approximately 60°C (140°F).








The three plating tanks are divided into two cells and each cell is equipped with a rectifier to



to control the  current flow.   Current ratings per cell are 5,000 amperes, 3,000 amperes, and




10,000 amperes for tanks Nos.  1, 2 and 7, respectively.  Each rectifier is also equipped with




ampere-hour meters that measure the amount of current supplied to the plating tanks over time.








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





                                          2-1

-------
temperature.   In  addition,  each tank is equipped  with  an air agitation system  to  aid  in




maintaining uniform bath concentration and temperature.








2.2  Air Pollution Control Device




A schematic of the ventilation and control system on the plating tanks is shown in Figure 2-1.




The mesh pad mist eliminator system was manufactured by KCH Services, Inc., in Forest City,




North   Carolina.  The system was installed during 1991 by plant personnel.   Each tank is




equipped with a double-sided ventilation hood.  Moisture extractors  are located in the hood




uptakes to remove large chromic acid mist droplets prior to the mist eliminator.  The purpose




of the moisture extractors is to reduce the plugging tendency of the mist eliminator by reducing




the inlet loading to the device.  The takeoffs from tank Nos. 1  and 2 are ducted together and




form one inlet leg to the mist eliminator, while tank No. 7 is ducted separately and forms a




second leg to the mist eliminator. The ventilation system is rated at 470 cubic meters per  minute




(16,500 cubic feet per minute). The pressure drop across the mist eliminator is 1.7 kiloPascals




(7 inches in water column).








The mist eliminator is installed on the roof of the plating shop and consists of a set of chevron-




blades  followed by a series  of three mesh pads.   The mist eliminator is designed to remove




chromic acid mist in stages depending upon the particle size.  The larger droplets (particles




greater than 10 microns),  which comprise the majority of the emissions, are removed  by the




moisture extractor located above tanks 1, 2 and 7 but before the mist eliminator and also by the




chevron-blade stage of the MPME.  The first mesh pad is designed to remove smaller particles




(particles between 5 and 10 microns). The first mesh pad is composed of multiple layers  of




mesh pad material, and each layer is woven from fibers with diameters of 0.09 centimeter  (cm)




(37 thousandths of an inch [mils]. The second mesh pad (the composite mesh pad) is designed






                                          2-2

-------
                                    HIST ELtMfNATOfTK
    'J.
f
                »'»^. *~€t ft |
               /"~ •«-»-u»«*».i*£vj
 Jil3~
    i
 i
&•
•«  era
  TAM  1 "  TANK 2
CA;
T)
^
vi>
®
 c\
- SAMPLING LOCATION A AT INLET 1
- SAMPLING LOCATION 3_ AT INLET 2
- SAMPLING LOCATION C AT OUTLET
- SAMPLING LOCATION _0 TANK  1
- SAMPLING LOCATION £ TANK  2
- SAMPLING LOCATION £ TANK  7
- SAMPLING LOCATION G HASHDOWN WATE?.
                                                                                lANK  7
                 Figure 2.1. Schematic of Ventilation and Control System for Chromium Plating
                           Tanks at Precision Engineering, Inc.
                                                2-3

-------
such that the material layers in the center of the pad are composed of extremely small -diameter




fibers (0.02 cm [8 mils]).  The smaller the fiber diameter, the more dense the material layer.




The material layers on either side of the center are composed of progressively larger diameter




fibers (0.04 to 0.09 cm [16 to 37 mils]).  As the gas stream flows through the composite pad,




the small  particles that escape the first mesh pad (particles below 5 microns) impinge on the




composite pad and coalesce into larger droplets.  These enlarged particles are then removed in




the backside of the  composite pad or in  the backup   mesh pad located downstream of the



composite pad.  The third pad or backup mesh pad is composed of layers of material with a fiber



diameter of 0.09 cm  (37 mils).  The thickness of each pad is 15.7 cm (6.2 inches [in.]), 9.7 cm



(3.8 in.),  and 18.3 cm (7.2 in.) for the first, second, and third  pads, respectively.








Prior to each mesh pad is  a series of spray nozzles that are used to wash down the  pads and



remove any chromium that has built up on the pads. The pressure drop across each mesh pad




is monitored to determine the amount of chromium buildup on the pad.  An increase in pressure




drop above the normal  operating range for a given pad indicates  that the pad needs to be washed




down. Spray nozzles are also located in the chevron-blade section to allow periodic washing of




the blades.








2.3 Process Conditions During Testing




Three mass emission test runs were conducted at the two inlet locations and the outlet of the mist



eliminator to  characterize  the  performance  of a mesh-pad  mist eliminator  system that




incorporated the use of a composite mesh pad.  Each test run was 4 or 6 hours in duration. All




of the test runs were interrupted briefly to change test ports. No other interruptions  occurred




during sampling.
                                          2-4

-------
Sampling of Inlet No. 1 and Inlet No. 2 was performed at distances of 18 feet from the nearest




downstream disturbance and 4 feet from the nearest upstream  disturbance (mist eliminator).



Sampling of the Outlet was performed at a  distance of 60 inches from the nearest downstream




disturbance (outlet base) and 35 inches from the nearest upstream disturbance (top of exhaust



stack).








Process operating parameters monitored and recorded during each test run included the voltage,




current, ampere-hours, and the plating solution temperature for each plating tank.  A description



(dimensions and surface areas) of each part  plated also was recorded for each test run.  Process




data sheets documenting  the process and  control device operating parameters during  mass



emission testing are presented in  Appendix H.  Data on the  average operating parameters




recorded during the mass  emission test runs are presented in Table 2-1. The total amount of



current supplied to the tanks during each test run is calculated in terms of ampere-hours and is




included in Appendix H.








A tabular summary of the total current values is presented in Table 2-2.  As noted previously,




the ampere-hours supplied during testing were monitored and recorded from the ampere-hour




meters on  each rectifier.  However, the sum of the ampere-hours for each rectifier will not




match  the ampere-hours calculated in Appendix  H because of the difference between the actual




sampling time and the time required  for testing. These time periods are not equal because of




the time required to change test ports.  Therefore, the ampere-hours measured by the ampere-



hour meters will be slightly higher than the actual ampere-hours calculated in Appendix H.
                                          2-5

-------
   Table 2.1.  AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS
MONITORED DURING EACH MASS EMISSIONS TEST RUN
Test
Run No.

1





2





.3





Tank
No.

1A
IB
2A
2B
7A
7B
1A
IB
2A
2B
7A
7B
1A
IB
2A
2B
7A
7B
Operating
Voltage,
Volts
7.0
7.0
7.6
7.6
~
8.0
6.4
6.3
7.2
7.4
6.6
6.4
6.4
6.4
7.7
7.8
6.0
7.3
Operating
Current,
Amperes
4,300
3,700
2,300
1,400
--
7,000
3,600
3,400
1,700
1,850
1,300
2,000
2,970
2,800
2,000
1,700
1,000
7,200
Operating
Temperature
oF
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
                     2-6

-------
             Table 2.2. TOTAL AMPERE-HOURS SUPPLIED TO
           PLATING TANKS DURING MASS EMISSION TEST RUNS
TOTAL CURRENT, AMPERE-HOURS
Test Run No.
1
2
3

Inlet No. 1"
67,020
42,000
37,975

Inlet No. 2b
42,025
28,690
32,750

Outlet
109,045
70,690
70,725

a Total current for Tanks 1 and 2 combined
b Total current for Tank 7
                                 2-7

-------
Composite  samples were taken  from  each  plating  tank to determine  the chromic  acid




concentration of the plating solutions during each mass emission test run. The data obtained are




reported in Section 3 of this report.








MPME operating  parameters  monitored during each test run consisted of the pressure drop




across the unit, and the overall system pressure drop.  The Magnahelic gauges are located



downstairs in the plating shop; therefore, the pressure drop readings on the Magnahelic gauges




are not indicative of the actual pressure drop but are approximate values because of the pressure



losses in the tubing that connect the Magnahelic gauges to the mist eliminator. However, the




important factor in monitoring the pressure  drop is any decrease or increase from the normal



operating range.  An increase in pressure drop over its normal range indicates that the pad is




beginning to plug,  and  a decrease in pressure drop indicates that the gas stream  is bypassing the



pad.  The pressure drop readings recorded across each pad and the overall unit were consistent




for all test runs.
                                          2-8

-------
                                     Section 3

                     SUMMARY OF SAMPLE COLLECTION,
                   EMISSION CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS
3.1 Sample Collection

Emission samples were collected using a modification of U.S. EPA Method 13-B.  The samples

were collected simultaneously from Inlets No. 1 and No. 2 and from the Outlet of the MPME

under normal operating conditions.  Three tests were conducted at each sampling location.

Sampling times of 4 or 6 hours per test run were used to ensure that adequate quantities of

chromium were collected for subsequent chemical analysis.



Grab samples from the plating tank solutions (Tanks 1, 2 and 7) and the MPME water were also

collected during each sampling run. These samples were obtained at the beginning, middle and

at the end of each Method 13-B test run.



3.2 Stack Gas Parameters

Stack gas parameters, at each sampling location, are shown in Table 3-1.  At Inlet No.  1, the

stack gas velocity averaged 50.66 feet per second (fps), the average stack temperature was 78°F

and the average moisture content was 1.11%.  The volumetric flow rates at Inlet No. 1 were

9,548 actual cubic feet per minute (acfm) and 9,180 dry standard cubic feet per minute  (dscfm).

At Inlet No.  2, the stack gas velocity averaged 50.34 fps, the average stack temperature was

77°F and the average moisture content was 0.75%.  The volumetric flow rates at Inlet  No. 2

were 5,337 acfm and  5,159 dscfm.
                                        3-1

-------
 At the Outlet, the stack gas velocities averaged 50.11 fps, the average stack temperature was




 85 °F and the average moisture content was 0.98%.  The average volumetric flow rates at the



 Outlet were 14,758 acfm and 14,241 dscfm.








 The stack gas at all sampling locations was essentially ambient air and thus was assigned a dry




 molecular  weight of 28.95 Ib/lb-mole.  Variation  in isokinetic sampling rates  were within




 allowable limits for  all sampling runs of Method 13-B except Run 2 of Inlet 2 which had an



 isokinetic rate of 88.81%.








 The evaluation of particle  size, from previous test runs, indicate  that more than 85% of the




 particles emitted from a controlled electroplating process  are less than 2.5 microns in diameter.




 Particles less than 2.5 microns behave like a gas rather than a paniculate.  In gaseous sampling



 the isokinetic sampling rate is not considered to be significant.  Therefore, no adjustments were




 made to the data and the results are acceptable.








 3.3  Emission Calculations and Discussion of Results




 This subsection of the report provides the  following information:   1)   Cr-VI results from




 colorimetry and  ICPCR analyses; 2)  Cr-T results  from  ICP analysis; 3) Cr-VI and Cr-T




concentrations in the plating tank solutions, MPME water and sampling train blank samples;




 4) computerized spreadsheet calculations of emission concentrations and mass emission rates;




 5) MPME removal efficiencies; and 6)  MPME penetration.
                                          3-2

-------
                  Table 3.1  SUMMARY OF STACK GAS CONDITIONS
Inlet No.l
Run No.
1
2
3
Average
Velocity
fps-
50.77
48.53
52.66
50.66
Stack
Temp. °F
96
69
70
78
Flow Rate
acfmb
9,570
9,148
9,927
9,548
dscfmc
8,901
8,830
9,810
9,180
Moisture
%
0.98
1.14
1.21
1.11
%
Isokinetic
Rate
101.52
98.99
93.32
97.94
      Inlet No. 2
Run No.
1
2
3
Average
Velocity
fps"
52.14
52.02
46.85
50.34
Stack
Temp. °F
93
70
68
77
Flow Rate
acfmb
5,528
5,516
4,968
5,337
dscfme
5,183
5,350
4,943
5,159
Moisture
%
0.67
0.65
0.94
0.75
%
Isokinetic
Rate
103.02
88.81
98.37
96.73
      Outlet
Run No.
1
2
3
Average
Velocity
fps"
50.88
49.03
50.41
50.11
Stack
Temp. °F
111
72
72
85
Flow Rate
acfmb
14,986
14,442
14,847
14,758
dscfm0
13,776
14,065
14,882
14,241
Moisture
%
0.97
1.08
0.90
0.98
%
Isokinetic
Rate
109.24
99.68
99.48
102.80
 Feet per second
b Actual cubic feet per minute
c Dry standard cubic feet per minute at 68 °F and 29.92" Hg
                                           3-3

-------
3.3.1 Cr-VI Results From Colorimetrv and ICPCR Analyses




Table 3.2 lists Cr-VI results obtained from two analytical techniques namely:  1) colorimetry



using diphenylcarbazide; and 2) ICPCR.   The colorimetric technique, used in the field  to




determine Cr-VI, provided a rapid analysis of chromium concentrations.  The results were not




used in the emission calculations in this report and are provided in Appendix E for information




only. RTIL's analytical results  for total chromium (Cr-T) and hexavalent chromium




(Cr-VI) were used to make emission calculations in this report.








Table  3.3 provides analytical  results of Cr-VI  mass emission  testing  at  the Precision




Engineering,  Inc. plant.  The samples were analyzed using  lon-Chromatography with a Post



Column Reactor (ICPCR).  RTIL's analytical  data report is provided  in Appendix D.  The




average concentration of Inlets No. 1 and No. 2 combined was 0.4717 mg/m3 of Cr-VI and the



outlet average concentration was 0.0103 mg/m3 .   These averages translate into Cr-VI mass




emission rates of 1.43 x 10"2 Ib/hr and 5.48 x 10"* Ib/hr for the inlets and the outlet respectively.








3.3.2 Total Chromium Results From ICP Analysis




Presented  in Table 3.4  are the total chromium (Cr-T) emission results. RTIL's analytical data




report is provided in Appendix D. Table 3.4 shows an average Cr-T emission concentration  of



0.497 mg/m3 at Inlets No. 1 and  No. 2 combined. The Cr-T emission concentration at the outlet




averaged 0.0108 mg/m3. The average Cr-T mass emission rate from Inlets No. 1 and No. 2




combined  was 1.50 x 10"2 Ib/hr  and the outlet average emission rate  was 5.75 x 104 Ib/hr.
                                         3-4

-------
              Table 3.2.  COMPARISON OF EMISSION SAMPLE
              ANALYSIS RESULTS' FOR CHROMIUM-VI USING
                 COLORIMETRY" AND ICPCRC TECHNIQUES
       Inlet No. 1
Test Run No.
Run No. 1
Run No. 2
Run No. 3
Average
Sampling Time
(min)
360
240
240
Total Cr-VI (/ig)
Colorimetryb
2,862
743
848
1,484
ICPCR£
2,889
1,774
2,891
2,518
     Inlet No. 2
Run No. 1
Run No. 2
Run No. 3
Average
360
240
240

1,517
808
779
1,035
1,589
770
813
1,057
     Outlet
Run No. 1
Run No. 2
Run No. 3
360
240
240
123
37.8
50.3
Average 70.4
146
60.6
53.5
86.7
1 Results are expressed as total microgram of Chromium-VI
b Colormetric quantification on-site using diphenylcarbazide organic analytical reagent
c lon-chromatography with a post column reactor.
                                    3-5

-------
            Table 3.3.  ANALYTICAL' RESULTS OF CHROMIUM-VI
                          MASS EMISSION TESTING
     Inlets"
Test
Run No.
1
2
3
Average
Total Cr-VI
0*g)c
4,478
2,544
3,704
3,575
Emission
Concentration
(mg/m3)1
0.4465
0.4045
0.5640
0.4717
Mass
Emission Rate
(lb/hr)c
1.276x 10-2
1.175x 10-2
1.838 x 10-2
1.430 x 10 2
Mass
Emission
Rate
(kg/hr)c
5.79 x lO'3
5.33 x 10-3
8.33 x lO'3
6.48 x 10 3
   Outlet
Test
Run No.
1
2
3
Average
Total Cr-VI
(Mg)°
146
60.6
53.5
86.7
Emission
Concentration
(mg/m3) c
0.0139
0.0093
0.0078
0.0103
Mass
Emission
Rate
(lb/hr)c
7.19x 10"
4.91 x 10"
4.34 x 10"
5.48 x 10"
Mass
Emission
Rate
(kg/hr)£
3.26 x 10"
2.22 x 10"
1.97x 10"
2.48 x 10"
a Analysis method, lon-Chromatography with Post Column Reactor.
b The control device has two inlets (Inlet No. 1 and Inlet No.2).
0 Sum of Cr-VI emissions from Inlet No. 1 and Inlet No.2.
                                     3-6

-------
          Table 3.4.  ANALYTICAL1 RESULTS OF TOTAL CHROMIUM
                         MASS EMISSION TESTING
     Inletsb
Test
Run No.
1
2
3
Average
Cr-T Otg)c
4,602
2,728
3,921
3,750
Emission
Concentration
(mg/m3)c
0.4592
0.4341
0.5976
0.4970
Mass Emission
Rate
(lb/hr)e
1.32x 10-2
1.25 x 10-2
1.93 x ID'2
1.50 x 10 2
Mass Emission
Rate
(kg/hr)c
5.991 x lO'3
5.656 x 10'3
8.741 x 10'3
6.796 x 103
     Outlet
Test
Run No.
1
2
3
Average
Cr-T (/ig)c
137.0
68.3
61.3
88.9
Emission
Concentration
(mg/m3)£
0.0131
0.0105
0.0089
0.0108
Mass Emission
Rate
(lb/hr)c
6.75 x 10-4
5.53 x 10^
4.97 x IQi4
5.75 x 10-4
Mass Emission
Rate
(kg/hr)c
3.06 x 10-4
2.51 x 10-4
2.26 x 10-4
2.61 x 10-4
• Analysis method, Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP)
b The control device has two inlets (Inlet No. 1 and Inlet No. 2)
c Sum of total chromium emissions from Inlet No. 1 and Inlet No. 2
                                    3-7

-------
3.3.3 Concentrations In Plating Tank Solution. MPME Water and Train Blank Samples

Cr-VI and Cr-T concentrations  in the plating tank solution, MPME water and train blank

samples were determined by RTIL using  ICPCR and ICP.  The sample concentrations are

presented  in  Table 3.5.   The  concentrations  of chromium  remained essentially constant

throughout the testing period.




3.3.4 Computerized Spreadsheet Calculations

A computerized spreadsheet, provided by Mr. Frank Clay (U.S. EPA, Task Manager), was used

to calculate the emission concentrations and mass emission rates in  this  report.   Manual

calculations were made by AST personnel to verify that the computer results were accurate. The

computer printouts are provided in Appendix  A.  Appendix F presents the equations used to

make these manual verifications.



3.3.5 Removal Efficiency of The Mesh Pad Mist Eliminator

Chromium removal efficiencies  for the MPME  system were  determined by simultaneously

sampling the two inlets and outlet of the MPME.  The mass emission rates were used to

calculate removal efficiencies. Removal efficiency is calculated using the equation below.



                                 RE = -^-2 x 100
                                         c,


Where:

  RE = % Removal Efficiency

  Ci = ]£  of mass emission rates at  Inlets 1 and 2, Ib/hr
 C0 = Mass emission rate at the outlet, Ib/hr
                                        3-8

-------
            Table 3.5. ANALYSIS OF PLATING TANK SOLUTIONS,
                    MPME WATER AND BLANK SAMPLES
SAMPLES*
Tank 1 Run No. 1
Tank 1 Run No. 2
Tank 1 Run No. 3
Tank 2 Run No. 1
Tank 2 Run No. 2
Tank 2 Run No. 3
Tank 7 Run No. 1
Tank 7 Run No. 2
Tank 7 Run No. 3

Sampling Train
Blank0

MJ Outlet Run No. 1
MJ Outlet Run No. 2
MJ Outlet Run No. 3
Cr-VP Oig/ml)
1.22x 10+5
8.59 x 10+4
l.OSx 10+5
1.15x 10+5
1.22x 10+5
1.14x 10+s
1.23 x 10+5
1.23 x 10+5
1.20x 10+5


7.37 x 10"3

7.59 x lO'2 (6.4 x 10-2")
7.43 x 1C'2 (5.00 x 10-2**)
1.81 x 10-' (2.03 x 10-'")
Cr-Tb Otg/ml)
1.31 x 10+5
1.30x HT5
1.26x 10+5
1.27x 10+5
1.25x 10+5
1.24x 10+5
1.23x 10+5
1.26 x 10+s
1.25 x 10+s


3.20 x lO'2

2.69 x lO'1
2.86 x 10-1
6.00 x 10-3
* Liquid grab samples from tanks 1, 2, 7 and the MPME were collected at the beginning,
middle and end of   each Method 13-B run. All samples are composites.
* ICPCR was used for analysis
b ICP was used for analysis
0 The  Method 13-B  sampling train was cleaned between test runs.  The blank sample, is a
rinseate, was      collected after cleaning the train components.
** In-field colorimetric analysis results for MPME water
                                      3-9

-------
Mass emission rates are presented in Tables 3.3 and 3.4.  The data in Tables 3.3 and 3.4




indicate that  more than 95% of the mass emissions are of Cr-VI and less than  5%  of the



emissions are of Cr-III.








3.3.6 Penetration of The Mesh Pad Mist Eliminator




Penetration can be used to evaluate the performance of a chromium emission control device such




as a MPME.  Penetration is defined as the percentage of chromium that  escapes or is not




collected by an emission control device.  Percent penetration is calculated using the equation



below.





                           Percent Penetration=  100%  -  RE




Where:





 RE  =  % Removal Efficiency






Often, the percent penetration results reveal more about the process conditions than  the percent




efficiency results.








The calculated removal efficiencies are tabulated in Table 3.6. The average removal efficiency




for Cr-VI was 95.94%.  The average removal efficiency for  Cr-T was 95.96%.  The removal




efficiencies for Cr-T and Cr-VI are  essentially  the same.   As pointed out earlier, most of the




mass  emissions are  of Cr-VI (—95%).  The percent penetration for each  test run was also



calculated.  Table 3.7 lists the  results of the removal efficiency and the percent  penetration




calculations.  Table 3.7 shows that about 4% of the chromium emissions penetrated the mesh



pad mist eliminator.
                                         3-10

-------
        Table 3.6. SUMMARY OF THE MESH PAD MIST ELIMINATOR
                  CHROMIUM REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Analyte





Cr-VI
Cr-VI
Cr-VI
Average
Cr-T
Cr-T
Cr-T
Average
Analytical
Technique
Used



ICPCR
ICPCR
ICPCR
NA
ICP
ICP
ICP
NA
Test
Run
No.



1
2
3
NA
1
2
3
NA
Mass
Emission
Rates at
Inlets No. 1
and No. 2*
(Ib/hr)
1.276x lO'2
1.175x ID'2
1.838x lO'2
1.430 x 10 2
1.320x ID'2
1.247x ID'2
1.927x lO'2
1.498 x 10 2
Mass
Emission
Rate at
Outlet
(Ib/hr)

7.190x 10"
4.906 x 10"
4.340 x 10"
5.479 x 10"
6.747 x 10"
5.530 X 10"
4.972 x 10"
5.750 x 10"
Removal
Efficiency
(%)



94.37
95.82
97.64
95.94
94.89
95.57
97.42
95.96
*  - Inlets 1 and 2 mass emission rates were combined.
NA - Not Applicable
                                 3-11

-------
            Table 3.7.  REMOVAL EFFICIENCY AND PERCENT
             PENETRATION* OF CHROMIUM THROUGH THE
                    MESH PAD MIST ELIMINATOR
Test Run No.
1
2
3
Average
% Removal Efficiency
Cr-VI
94.37
95.82
97.64
95.94
Cr-T
94.89
95.57
97.42
95.96
% Penetration
Cr-VI
5.63
4.18
2.36
4.06
Cr-T
5.11
4.43
2.58
4.04
* Percent Penetration = 100% - % Removal Efficiency
                               3-12

-------
                                       Section 4




                       SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS
4.1  Types of Samples Collected and Sample Recovery Descriptions




Two types of samples were collected during field testing at the Precision Engineering, Inc. plant:




1) liquid  grab samples; and 2) gaseous stack samples.   A description for each sample type




collected is provided below.








4.1.1  Liquid Grab Samples




The plating tank solution and the mesh pad mist eliminator water samples were collected during




each sampling run,  in pre-cleaned Mason jars. For example, one plating tank solution sample



consisted  of three sample fractions collected in the same Mason jar. Each sample fraction was




collected at different periods (i.e., beginning, middle and end) of a test run. Nine (9) composite



plating tank solution samples were  collected from plating tanks (1,2 and 7) and 3 composite




samples were collected from the mesh pad mist eliminator  during this project. Each sample was




labeled with date, run number and sample location.








•4.1.2  Gaseous Stack Samples




Gaseous stack samples were collected from two inlet locations (Inlet No. 1 and Inlet No. 2) and



one  Outlet  location,  using Method 13-B.    Method 13-B stack samples were recovered




immediately after each test run.  The contents of impingers 1 and 2 were measured for volume



increase and then transferred to a pre-weighed and pre-cleaned plastic bottle. The nozzle, probe




and glass tubing connecting the impingers were washed with 0. IN NaOH. These washings were



added to the same plastic bottle. Silica gel from the fourth impinger was weighed to determine
                                         4-1

-------
weight gain from moisture absorption. The silica gel was then placed in a container, labeled and




stored in the cooler.








A sampling  train blank sample was collected after each Method  13-B test run.  This was




performed by thoroughly rinsing the inside of the sampling train components with a 0. IN NaOH




solution and then placing the rinseate into a container labeled "Sampling Train Blank."  The




sampling train blank was stored in the cooler.  Field blank samples were also prepared, labeled




and stored in the cooler.








4.1.3 Sampling Locations




Inlet No. 1




Inlet No. 1 was located on a straight run of 24-inch diameter duct work just before the mesh pad




mist eliminator.  Sampling ports were cut at a location approximately 18 feet downstream and




4 feet upstream from the nearest disturbance.  According to U.S. EPA Method 1  criteria, this




location required 12 traverse points, six along each of the two perpendicular diameters.  Figure




4.1 shows Inlet No. 1 traverse point locations.








Inlet No. 2




Inlet No. 2 was located on a straight run of  18-inch diameter duct work just before the control




.device.   Sampling ports were cut at a location approximately 18 feet downstream and 4 feet




upstream of the nearest disturbance.  Twelve traverse points were also required at this location.




Figure 4.2 shows Inlet No. 2 traverse point  locations.
                                          4-2

-------
Outlet




The Outlet of the mesh pad mist eliminator was a 30-inch diameter stack.  The total height of



the stack was about 95 inches.  This total height included a 24-inch stack extension attached to




the stack during the test.  A butterfly-type cap was installed to prevent extraneous materials from




entering  into  the  stack.   Sampling ports were cut at a location approximately  60 inches




downstream and 35 inches upstream of the nearest disturbance.  Figure 4.3 shows the Outlet




traverse point locations.  Twenty-four traverse points were required at this location; 12 along



each of the two perpendicular diameters. Figure 4.3 shows the Outlet traverse point locations.



Figures 4.1  through 4.3  show traverse point locations along one perpendicular diameter.   The




total number of traverse  points, in these figures, are obtained by multiplying the traverse  point




locations shown  by two.
                                           4-3

-------
          DIAMETER
              24.0"
Figure 4.1.  Inlet No. 1 Traverse Point Locations
                  4-4

-------
        DIAMETER
            18.0"
Figure 4.2. Inlet No. 2 Traverse Point Locations
                 4-5

-------
        DIAMETER
             30"
Figure 4.3.  Outlet Traverse Point Locations
               4-6

-------
4.2  Air Sampling Test Methods




The test methods used during this project were in accordance with U.S. EPA Methods  1, 2, 4



and a modification of Method 13-B.  Method 13-B, designed for total fluoride emission testing




was used for the chromium paniculate collection.  A brief description of each method used in




given below.








4.2.1 Traverse Points



U.S.  EPA  Method  1  "Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources"  was used to



determine the location of traverse points. Cyclonic flow checks were made prior to testing.



These checks indicated that cyclonic flow conditions did not exist at the sampling locations.








4.2.2 Stack Gas Velocity



U.S. EPA Method 2 "Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate (Type "S"




Pilot  Tube)" was used to measure the stack gas velocity and temperature at each test point.




Type K" thermocouples were affixed to type "S" pilot tubes having an assigned coefficient of




0.84. The velocity pressure was measured on an inclined manometer.  The volumetric flow rate




was calculated from the stack gas velocity and the stack cross-sectional area. Since this was an



ambient source, a dry molecular weight of 28.95 Ib/lb-mole was used.








4.2.3 Stack Gas Moisture




U.S. EPA Method 4 "Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gas" was used to determine




the stack gas moisture content.  These moisture determinations were made during the modified




Method 13-B test runs.
                                         4-7

-------
4.2.4 Modified Method 13-B Sampling Train




A modification  of U.S. EPA Method 13-B "Determination of Total Fluoride Emission from




Stationary Sources" was used to collect chromium emission  samples.  The sampling train




consisted of a glass button-hook nozzle, an unheated "Pyrex" glass-lined probe and a series of




four impingers.








Isokinetic samples were collected during each  test  run.  During sampling, stack gases were




pulled through the nozzle, past the probe and then through four impingers, where the chromium




was collected and retained.  The contents and the  configuration of the impingers are given




below.




    1.   The first impinger  contained 100 ml of 0. IN NaOH.




    2.   The second impinger contained 100 ml of 0. IN NaOH.




    3.   The third impinger was empty.




    4.   The fourth impinger contained a weighted amount of silica gel (200 grams).








The remainder of the train  consisted of a vacuum pump, dry gas meter, calibrated orifice and




related temperature and pressure measuring equipment.  Figure 4.4 shows a Schematic of the




Modified U.S. EPA Method 13-B Sampling Train.








4.3  Sample Analysis Methods




The samples collected during the Modified  13-B testing were analyzed using  one of three




analytical techniques.  The techniques were: 1) Colorimetry; 2) Inductively Coupled Plasma




(ICP); and 3) lon-Chromatography  with a Post Column Reactor (ICPRC).  Each analytical




technique is briefly described below.   ICP and ICPCR analyses were done by  RTIL.  The




colorimetric analyses  for hexavalent  chromium were performed by AST personnel in the field.






                                        4-8

-------
CONTAINER I.D.
Impinger #\
Impinger #2
Impinger #3
Impinger #4
CONTAINER CONTENT
Modified Greenburg-Smith - 100 ml
ofO.lNNaOH
Standard Greenburg-smith - 100 ml
Modified Greenburg-Smith - Empty
Modified Greenburg-Smith 200 grams
of Silica Gel
mast
     Figure 4.4.  Schematic of the Modified U.S. EPA Method 13-B
                          Sampling Train
                               4-9

-------
4.3.1 Colorimetry




Colorimetry was used on-site to analyze samples (i.e., inlet, outlet,  sample train blank and




MPME  water)  for Cr-VI.  A known aliquot  of the  sample was  made to  react  with  a




diphenylcarbazide solution at a pH of 2.00± 0.5.  Optimum color development  requires  10




minutes.  The intensity of the color is measured at 540 nm. The details of this procedure are




given in Appendices G and K.








4.3.2  Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP)




ICP  was used to determine total chromium in plating tank solution, MPME water, blank and




emission samples.  ICP is a simple and fast technique used for analysis of major and minor trace




elements in samples of all kinds and matrices.  It has a detection limit of one part per billion




(ppb) or less. Samples are aspirated into a high temperature argon plasma.  The argon plasma




causes molecular breakdown, atomization and/or ionization and excitation of metals in solution.




The  excited atoms  release characteristic radiation which is detected by a photomultiplier tube




(PMT).  The PMT produces an electrical current which is transformed into concentration values




by reference to a standard.








4.3.3 lon-Chromatographv With Post Column Reactor (ICPCR)




ICPCR was used to determine hexavalent chromium (Cr-VI) in the plating tank solution, MPME




water, blank and emission samples. Hexavalent chromium is chromatographed as CrO4'2 on an




ion column. After separation, the Cr-VI diphenylcarbazide complex  is quantified by visible




spectrometry at 520 nm.   ICPCR has a sub-part per billion detection limit.   Typically, ICPCR




instrumentation consists of: 1) an ion column; 2) a visible spectrophotometer detector; and 3)




an integrator. Details of the ICPCR analytical  technique are provided  in Appendix I.
                                        4-10

-------
                                      Section 5

               QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM, TEST PROGRAM
               PERSONNEL AND SUMMARY OF FIELD ACTIVITIES
5.1 Quality Assurance Program

AST's QA program consisted of the field-related procedural activities and contract laboratory

activities.  A discussion of the QA activities is given below.  The quality assurance activities

employed  during this project were performed to assure the quality of the data collected.



5.2 Data Review Prior To Report Preparation

All field data were recorded on standard data sheets. The field data sheets are in Appendix B.

Field data were also recorded on sampling summary sheets.  The sampling summary sheets are

in Appendix C.  Upon returning to the office, AST personnel reduced the field data collected.

Afterwards, the results  were summarized in a tabular format and reviewed for inconsistencies

or other incidences that may indicate errors (data entries or calculations).  Prior to reviewing

the summary, spot checks of the field data reductions were made to ensure that all raw data were

correct and complete.



5.3 Contract Laboratory Quality Assurance Procedures

The contract laboratory's QA program was established to ensure that its personnel produce valid

analytical  results.  This goal is  accomplished by  regularly  monitoring the reliability  (i.e.,

precision,  accuracy, reproducibility) of the reported results.
                                         5-1

-------
Quality assurance activities taken to ensure high quality analytical results include the following:


    •  Reagent blank samples were prepared and analyzed
    •   QC check standards were analyzed at the beginning of a test run to verify a standard
        curve
        Spiked blanks were prepared and analyzed to assure there were no interferences


        Duplicate samples were prepared and analyzed to assure the analytical precision
    •   Instrumentation  performance was regularly monitored and repairs  were made when
        required
5.4 Test Program Personnel

The personnel involved in the completion of this test  program, their titles and their job

affiliations are listed below.



           Frank Clay     -   Task Manager, U.S. EPA

           Tom  Yaroch   -   Project Manager, AST

           James Parker   -   Technician, AST

           Michelle Knox -   Laboratory Analyst, AST

           Ron Kirkland   -   Meter Reader, AST

           Jim Dini       -   Meter Reader, AST

           Chuck Hames  -   Meter Reader, AST
                                         5-2

-------
5.5  Field Activities








The following is a summary of the field activities:








    12/16/91   Traveled to Seattle, Washington, inventoried equipment, prepared site








    12/17/91   Conducted one, six-hour measurement run at each site, recovered and analyzed




               emission samples








    12/18/91   Conducted  one,  four-hour  measurement  run at each  site,  recovered and




               analyzed emission samples








    12/19/91   Conducted  one,  four-hour  measurement  run at each  site,  recovered and




               analyzed emission samples; restored site, packed and shipped equipment








    12/20/91   Traveled to Atlanta, Georgia
                                          5-3

-------
                                         April 29,  1993
NOTE:
     Attached   is   an  addendum  to   the   source  test  at   the
electroplating  facility in Seattle, Washington.

                                    Frank R. Clay

                                    '-«.'. ^  •    >    *-


-------
    ADDENDUM FOR THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TEST
     REPORT FOR THE DECEMBER 1991 SOURCE TEST AT THE PRECISION
 ENGINEERING, INC. ELECTROPLATING FACILITY IN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
     At the request of Midwest  Research Institute,  this addendum
has been prepared for the Precision Engineering Test Report.  The
changes are minor and correct field data  and calculations found in
the report.

     After the first run of the source test,  it was discovered that
the thermocouple indicator  readings used to  determine  inlet and
outlet stack temperatures were biased about  20 degrees F too high.
For the  remaining runs,  dial thermometers  were used  for stack
temperature readings.

     In the original version of  the  test report stack temperatures
obtained from the thermocouple were  used in  the data reduction for
Run 1.  For this addendum, the average stack  temperatures from Runs
2 and 3 are used in the reduction of the data  from Run 1.  Changes
were made throughout Chapter 3 wherever  the corrected temperatures
had an effect.

     This  addendum is  composed  of  two  parts:   (1)  revisions to
Chapter 3 and (2) computer print outs.  The addendum for  Chapter
3 contains the entire chapter and completely replaces the original
Chapter 3.  The new computer print outs  replace the original print
outs for Run 1 data from both the inlet and the outlet locations.
For  reports with  appendices,  replace  both  Chapter  3 and  the
computer  print  out sheets;  for reports without  appendices only
Chapter 3 need be replaced.

-------
                                    Section 3

                     SUMMARY OF SAMPLE COLLECTION,
                    EMISSION CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS
 3.1  Sample Collection

 Emission samples were collected using a modification of U.S. EPA Method 13-B. The samples

 were collected simultaneously from Inlets No. 1 and No. 2 and from the Outlet of the MPME

 under normal operating conditions.  Three tests were conducted at each sampling  location.

 Sampling times of 4 or 6 hours per test run were  used to  ensure that adequate quantities of

 chromium were collected for subsequent chemical analysis.



 Grab samples from the plating tank solutions (Tanks  1, 2 and 7) and the MPME water were also

 collected during each sampling run. These samples were obtained at the beginning, middle and

 at the end of each Method 13-B test run.



 3.2  Stack Gas Parameters

 Stack gas parameters, at each sampling location, are shown in Table 3-1. At Inlet No. 1, the

 stack gas velocity averaged48.92feet per second (fps), the average stack temperature was 70°F

 and  the average moisture content was 1.11%.  The volumetric flow rates at Inlet No. 1 were

 9473 actual cubic feet per minute (acfm) and 9254 dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm).

 At Inlet No. 2, the stack gas velocity averaged49.96fps, the average stack temperature was

69°F and the average moisture content was 0.75%.  The volumetric flow rates at Inlet No. 2

 were 52.97 acfm and 5198 dscfm.
                                        3-1

-------
At the Outlet, the stack gas velocities averaged49.53fps, the average stacK temperature was




72°F and the average moisture content was 0.98%.  The average volumetric flow rates at the



Outlet were 14588 acfm  and  14406 dscfm.








The stack gas at all sampling locations was essentially ambient air and thus was assigned a dry




molecular weight of 28.95 Ib/lb-mole.  Variation in isokinetic  sampling  rates were within




allowable limits for all sampling  runs of Method  13-B except Run 2 of Inlet 2 which had an




isokinetic rate of 88.81%.








The evaluation of particle size, from previous test runs,  indicate that more than  85 % of the



particles emitted from a controlled electroplating process are less than 2.5 microns in diameter.




Particles less than 2.5 microns behave like a gas rather than a paniculate.  In gaseous sampling



the isokinetic sampling rate is not considered to be significant.  Therefore, no adjustments were




made to the data and the results are acceptable.








3.3 Emission Calculations and Discussion of Results



This  subsection of the report  provides the following information:   1)  Cr-VI results from




colorimetry and  ICPCR  analyses; 2)  Cr-T results  from  ICP analysis;  3) Cr-VI and Cr-T




concentrations in the plating tank solutions, MPME water and sampling train blank samples;




4) computerized spreadsheet calculations of emission concentrations and mass emission rates;




5) MPME removal efficiencies; and 6) MPME penetration.
                                         3-2

-------
                  Table 3.1  SUMMARY OF STACK GAS CONDITIONS
Inlet No.l
Run No.
1
2
3
Average
Velocity
fps"
45.58
48.53
~ 52.66
48.92
Stack
Temp. °F
70
69
70
70
Flow Rate
acfmb
9345
9,148
9,927
9473
dscfm'
9122
8,830
9,810
9254
Moisture
%
0.98
1.14
1.21
1.11
%
Isokinetic
Rate
99.05
98.99
93.32
97.12
      Inlet No. 2
Run No.
1
2
3
Average .
Velocity
fps-
51.01
52.02
46.85
49.96
Stack
Temp. °F
69
70
68
69
Flow Rate
acfmb
5408
5,516
4,968
. 5297
dscfme
5301
5,350
4,943
5198
Moisture
%
0.67
0.65
0.94
0.75
%
Isokinetic
Rate
100.72
88.81
98.37
95.97
     T)utlet
Run No.
1
2
3
Average
Velocity
fps"
49.15
49.03
50.41
49.53
Stack
Temp. °F
. 72
72
72
72
Flow Rate
acfmb
14474
14,442
14,847
14588
dscfmc
14272
14,065
14,882
14406
Moisture
%
0.97
1.08
0.90
0.98
%
Isokinetic
Rate
105.45
99.68
99.48
101.54
 Feet per second
b Actual cubic feet per minute
c Dry standard cubic feet per minute at 68 °F and 29.92" Hg
                                           3-3

-------
3.3.1  Cr—VI Results From Colorimefary and ICPCR Analyses



Table  3.2  list  Cr-VI  results  obtained  from  two  analytical



techniques, namely:  1) colorimetry using diphenylcarbazide;  and 2)



ICPCR.  The colorimetric  technique  , used in the field to determine



Cr-VI, provided a rapid  analysis of chromium concentrations.   The



results were not used in the emission calculations in this  report



and  are provided  in  Appendix  E for  information only.    RTIS's



analytical  results  for  total  chronium  (Cr-T)  and  hexavalent



chromium '(Cr-VI") were used* to "make enission calculations in this



report.







Table  3.3  provides  analytical  results of  Cr-VI mass  emission



testing at the Precision Engineering, Inc plant.   The samples were



analyzed  using  lon-Chromatography  with a  Post Column Reactor



(ICPCR).  RTIL's analytical data report is  provided in Appendix D.



The  average concentration  at  the outlet was  0.0103 mg/m3.   The



average mass emission rate  (Ibs/hr) of the  two  inlets combined  was



1.44 x 10~2  Ib/hr and the outlet had an emission rate  of 5.57 x  10~4



Ib/hr.







3.2.2  Total Chromium Results  Froia ICP  Analysis



Presented  in Table  3.4  are  the total  chromium (CR-T)  emission



results.  RTIL's analytical data report is  provided in Appendix D.



The  Cr-T  emission  concentration  at the outlet  averaged  0.0108



mg/m3.  The average Cr-T mass eiaission  rate from  Inlets  No. 1  and



No. 2 combined was 1.51 x 10"2 Ib/hr and the outlet average emission



rate was 5.83 x  10~*  Ib/hr.




                             3-4

-------
              Table 3.2.  COMPARISON OF EMISSION SAMPLE
              ANALYSIS RESULTS' FOR CHROMIUM-VI USING
                 COLORIMETRY" AND ICPCR£ TECHNIQUES
       Inlet No. 1
Test Run No.
Run No.l
Run No. 2
• Run -No-. 3 •
Sampling Time
(min)
360
240
240 	
Total Cr-VI G*g)
Colorimetryb
2,862
743
:~ .. 848
Average 1,484
ICPCR'
2,889
1,774
. .2,891
2,518
     Inlet No. 2
Run No. 1
Run No. 2
Run No. 3
Average
360
240
240
1,517
808
779
1,035
1,589
770
813
1,057
     Outlet
Run No. 1
Run No. 2
Run No. 3
360
240
240
123
37.8
50.3
Average 70.4
146
60.6
53.5
86.7
' Results are expressed as total microgram of Chromium-VI
b Colormetric quantification on-site using diphenylcarbazide organic analytical reagent
c lon-chromatography with a post column reactor.
                                   3-5

-------
           Table 3.3.  ANALYTICAL' RESULTS OF CHROMIUM-VI
                       MASS EMISSION TESTING
    Inlets"
Test
Run No.
1
2
3
Average
Total Cr-VI
(Mg)c
4,478
2,544
3,704
3,575
Emission
Concentration
(mg/m3)'




Mass
Emission Rate
(lb/hr)c
1.30 X 10'2
1.175 x 10-2
1.838x ia2
1-44 x 10'2
Mass
Emission
Rate
(kg/hr)'
5.93 X ID'3
5.33 x ID"3
8.33 x lO'3
6.53 x 10~3
   Outlet
Test
Run No.
1
2
3
Average
Total Cr-VI
fog)0
146
60.6
53.5
86.7
Emission
Concentration
(mg/m3) c
0.0139
0.0093
0.0078
0.0103
Mass
Emission
Rate
(Ib/hr)'
7.45 x 10-"
4.91 x 10-*
4.34 x 10-*
5.57 x 10~4
Mass
Emission
Rate
(kg/hr)e
3.38 X 10-4
2.22 x 10-4
1.97 x 1O4
2.52 x 10"1
NOTE:  The concentration in milligrams per cubic meter for the two
inlets  combined is omitted from the inlet data.  Since  the flow
rates for the  two inlets were different, a combined  concentration
number would not reflect the concentration of either inlet and  is
not  needed  in  this  report.   Inlet  #1 averaged  0.3364  Mg/M3  of
hexavalent  chromium  while  Inlet  #2  averaged 0.1353   Mg/M3   of
hexavalent chromium.
•  Analysis method, lon-Chromatography with Post Column Reactor.
b  The control device has two inlets (Inlet No. 1 and Inlet No.2).
e  Sum of Cr-VI emissions from Inlet No.l and Inlet No.2.
                                 3-6

-------
         Table 3.4.  ANALYTICAL1 RESULTS OF TOTAL CHROMIUM
                       MASS EMISSION TESTING
     InJetsb
Test
Run No.
1
2
3
.Average
Cr-T Oig)c
4,602
2,728
3,921
3,750 .
Emission
Concentration
(mg/m3)1



-- • -.
Mass Emission
Rate
flb/hr)e
1.35 X ID'2
1.25x 10"2
1.93x lO"2
1.51 x 10'2
Mass Emission
Rate
(kg/hr)c
6.14 x lO'3
5.656 x 10-3
8.741 x 10"3
6.846 X 10"
     Outlet
Test
Run No.
1
2
3
Average
Cr-T 0*g)e
137.0
68.3
61.3
88.9
Emission
Concentration
(mg/m3)'
0.0131
0.0105
0.0089
0.0108
Mass Emission
Rate
(lb/hr)c
6.99 x ID"1
5.53 x 104
4.97 x 104
5.83 X 10"4
Mass Emission
Rate
(kg/hr)c
3.17 x 1CT4
2.51 x 10-*
2.26 x 10-1
2.65 X ID'4
 NOTE:  The concentration  in milligrams per cubic meter  for the two
 inlets combined is omitted from the  inlet data.   Since the  flow
 rates for the two inlets  were different,  a combined concentration
 number would not reflect  the concentration of either inlet and is
 not needed in this report.  Inlet #1 averaged 0.3492 Mg/M3 of total
 chromium while  Inlet #2 averaged 0.1478 Mg/M3 of  total chromium.
1 Analysis method, Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP)
b The control device has two inlets (Inlet No. 1 and Inlet No. 2)
c Sum of total chromium emissions from Inlet No. 1 and Inlet No. 2
                                 3-7

-------
3.3.3 Concentrations In Plating Tank Solution. MPME Water and Train Blank Samriles




Cr-VI and Cr-T concentrations in the plating tank solution, MPME water and train blank




samples were determined by RTIL using ICPCR and ICP.  The sample concentrations are




presented  in  Table 3.5.   The concentrations  of chromium  remained essentially  constant




throughout the testing period.








3.3.4 Computerized Spreadsheet Calculations




A computerized spreadsheet, provided by Mr. Frank Clay (U.S. EPA, Task Manager), was used



to calculate the emission cbncenIraQons"aTfd""niass emission rates in  this  report.  Manual




calculations were made by AST personnel to verify that the computer results were accurate. The



computer printouts are provided in Appendix A.  Appendix F presents the equations used to




make these manual verifications.








3.3.5 Removal Efficiency of The Mesh Pad Mist Eliminator



Chromium removal efficiencies for the MPME system  were  determined by simultaneously




sampling the two inlets and outlet of the MPME.  The mass emission rates were used to




calculate removal efficiencies.  Removal efficiency is calculated  using the equation below.





                                        Crc0
                                 RE = — — - x 100

                                          C,





Where:



  RE -  % Removal Efficiency




           of mass emission rates at  Inlets  1 and 2, Ib/hr
  C0 = Mass emission rate at the outlet, lb\hr
                                         3-8

-------
            Table 3.5.  ANALYSIS OF PLATING TANK SOLUTIONS,
                    MPME WATER AND BLANK SAMPLES
SAMPLES*
Tank 1 Run No. 1
Tank 1 Run No. 2
Tank 1 Run No. 3
Tank 2 Run No. 1
Tank 2 Run No. 2
Tank 2 Run No. 3
Tank 7 Run No. 1
Tank 7 Run No. 2
Tank 7 Run No. 3

Sampling Train
Blank c

MJ Outlet Run No. 1
MJ Outlet Run No. 2
MJ Outlet Run No. 3
Cr-VP Oig/ml)
1.22x 10+5
8.59 x 10+4
1.08x 10+5
1.15x 10+5
1.22x 10+s
1.14x 10+5
1.23x 10+5
1.23x 10+5
1.20x 10+s


7.37 x lO'3

7.59 x lO'2 (6.4 x 10-2")
7.43 x lO'2 (5.00 x 10-2")
1.81 x 10"' (2.03 x 10-1")
Cr-1* Otg/ml)
1.31 x 10+s
1.30x 10+s
1.26x 10+s
1.27 x 10+s
1.25x 10+5
1.24 x 10+s
1.23x 10+5
1.26 x 10+5
1.25x 10+5


3.20 x 10'2

2.69 x 10'1
2.86 x 10'1
6.00 x lO'3
* Liquid grab samples from tanks  1, 2,  7 and the MPME were collected at the beginning,
middle and end of   each Method 13-B run.  All samples are composites.
• ICPCR was used for analysis
b ICP was used for analysis
e The Method 13-B  sampling train  was cleaned between test runs.  The blank sample,  is a
rinseate, was      collected after cleaning the train components.
** In-field colorimetric analysis results for MPME water
                                      3-9

-------
kass e'mission rates are presented in Tables 3.3 2nd 3.4.   The data in Tables 3.3 and  3.4




indicate that more than 95%  of the mass  emissions are of Cr-VI and less than  5%  of the




emissions are of Cr-in.








3.3.6 Penetration of The Mesh Pad Mkt Eliminator




Penetration can be used  to evaluate the performance of a chromium emission control device such




as a MPME.  Penetration is  defined as the percentage of chromium that  escapes or is  not




collected by an emission control device.  Percent penetration is calculated using the equation



below.





                           Percent Penetration= 100% -  RE




Where:





 RE  =  % Removal Efficiency






Often, the percent penetration  results reveal more about the process conditions than the percent




efficiency results.








The calculated removal  efficiencies are tabulated in Table 3.6. The average removal efficiency




for Cr-VI was 95.94%. The average removal efficiency for  Cr-T was 95.96%.  The removal



efficiencies for Cr-T and Cr-VI are essentially the same.  As pointed out earlier, most of the



mass emissions are of  Cr-VI  (—95%). The percent penetration for each  test run was also



calculated.  Table 3.7  lists the  results of the removal efficiency and the percent  penetration




calculations.  Table 3.7 shows that about 4% of the chromium emissions penetrated the mesh




pad mist eliminator.
                                         3-10

-------
         iaoie
                   CHROMIUM REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Analyte



Cr-VI
Cr-VI
• cr-vr
Average
Cr-T
Cr-T
Cr-T
Average
Analytical
Technique
Used



ICPCR
ICPCR
ICPCR ~
NA
ICP
ICP
ICP
NA
Test
Run
No.



1
2
' 3 "
NA
1
2
3
NA
Mass
Emission
Rates at
Inlets No. 1
and No. 2*
(Ib/hr)
1.307 X 10'2
i.nsx icr2
• -"1.838 x 10-2
1.440 x 10'2
1.353 x 10"2
1.247x 10-2
1.927x 10-2
1.509 x 10'2
Mass
Emission
Rate at
Outlet
(Ib/hr)

7.449 X 10"*
4.906 x 10"
4.340 x 10"
5.65 x 10-*
6.990 x 10'4
5.530 X 10"
4.972 x 10"
5.831 x 10~*
Removal
Efficiency
(%)



94.30
95.82
97.64
95.92
94.83
95.57
97.42
95.94
*   - Inlets 1 and 2 mass emission rates were combined.
NA - Not Applicable
                                   3-11

-------
          Table 3.7. REMOVAL EFFICIENCY AND PERCENT
           PENETRATION* OF CHROMIUM THROUGH THE
                  MESH PAD MIST ELIMINATOR
Test Run No.
1
. .. 2.
3
Average
% Removal Efficiency
Cr-VI
94.30
95.82
97.64
95.92
Cr-T
94.83 -
95.57
97.42
95.94
% Penetration
Cr-VI
5.70
4.18 .
2.36
4.08
Cr-T
5.17
4.43
2.58
4.06
Percent Penetration = 100% - % Removal Efficiency
                              3-12

-------