United States        Office of Air Quality         EMB Report 81 -CEP-20
Environmental Protection  Ranning and Standards       Volume I
Agency           Research Triangle Park, NC 27711  February 1992
Air
Chromium  Electroplating Emissions
Comparison Test
(Use Of Polypropylene Balls And A Foam Blanket To)
(Enhance Existing Control Equipment)

Electronic Chrome And Grinding Company
Santa Fe Springs, California

-------
CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING EMISSIONS COMPARISON TEST

 (USE OF POLYPROPYLENE BALLS AND A FOAM BLANKET
                   TO ENHANCE
 THE PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING CONTROL EQUIPMENT)

           ELECTRONIC CHROME
                      AND
            GRINDING COMPANY

               Santa Fe Springs, California


                    Prepared for:

 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

           EMISSION MEASUREMENT BRANCH

           Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

            EPA CONTRACT NO 68-D-90155
                    Prepared by:

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

                  December 4, 1992

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sections                                                               Page

          TABLES AND FIGURES

          EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [[[  i

  I.       INTRODUCTION [[[ 1

  H.      PROCESS OPERATION [[[ 2

  IE.     SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ....................................  8

  IV.     SAMPLING LOCATIONS [[[ 18

  V.      SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES ...................................  24

  VI.     QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES .............................................. 27

Appendices

 A        Computer Print Out of Field Data [[[  A-l

 B        Field Data Sheets [[[   B-l

 C        Sampling Summary Sheet .... [[[  C-l

 P        Laboratory Analysis Reports and Chain of Custody Forms ..........................  D-l

 E        Amp Hour Calculations [[[  E-l

 F        Sample Calculations [[[   F-l

 G        Draft Method - Determination of Hexavalent
          Chromium Emissions from Decorative and Hard Chrome

-------
Tables                                                                  Page

  S-l    Summary of Test Conditions and Analytical Results	   iii

  2-1    Average Operating Parameters Monitored During Each
         Mass Emission Test Run for Plating Tank No. 8	   6

  2-2    Total Ampere-Hours Supplied to Plating Tank No.  8 During
         Mass Emission Test Runs	  7

  3-1    Summary of Stack Gas Conditions	  12

  3-2    Total Chromium Concentrations and Mass Emission
         Rates at Inlet Using ICP Analysis	   13

  3-3    Total Chromium Concentrations and Mass Emission
         Rates at Outlet Using Graphite Furnace Atomic
         Absorption Analysis	   14

  3-4    Summary of Scrubber Removal Efficiencies	    15

  3-5    Summary of the  Scrubber Emissions Expressed
         as Milligrams/Ampere-Hour	     16

  3-6    Total Chromium Quantified in Scrubber Water and
         Plating Tank Solution Samples Using ICP	   17
Figures

  4-1    Stack Dimensions	   19

  4-2    Inlet Traverse Point Locations	   20

  4-3    Inlet Measurement Site	   21

  4-4    Outlet Dimensions and Sampling Ports	22

  4-5    Outlet Traverse Point Locations	  23

  5-1    Schematic of the Modified U.S. EPA Method 13-B
         Sampling Train	   25

-------
                           EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chromium mass emission tests were conducted to evaluate removal efficiency of a packed-bed




scrubber.  Testing was performed during the week of February 17, 1992 at the Electronic



Chrome and Grinding Company (EG&GC) located in Santa Fe Springs, California.   The



objective of this project work was to evaluate performance of the packed-bed scrubber for total




chromium removal under the following conditions:








    (Condition A) Plating Tank No. 8 operating without a foam blanket and polypropylene balls








    (Condition B) Plating Tank No. 8 operating with a foam blanket and polypropylene balls
Three (3) tests were performed under Condition A and Condition B. Scrubber water samples




and the plating solution samples in Tank No. 8 were collected during each test run.








Upon completion of field activities, samples were shipped to Research Triangle Institute




Laboratory (RTEL), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina for the following analyses:








    •    Outlet samples for hexavalent chromium (Cr-VI) using ion chromatography (1C) with



         a  post column reactor, and  total chromium  using  Graphite  Furnace - Atomic



         Absorption Spectroscopy (GFAA).








    •    All inlet,  scrubber water and plating tank solution samples for total chromium using




         Inductively Coupled Plasma emission spectrometry (ICP).

-------
The Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) and GFAA are compatible techniques and therefore




analytical results obtained can be favorably compared.  Total chromium emissions at the inlet



of the packed-bed scrubber averaged  1.66 milligram per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm)



for the first set of three runs under Condition A (see above) and averaged 0.0369 mg/dscm for




the second set of three runs under Condition B. Mass emissions at the outlet averaged O.OS95




mg/dscm for the first set of three runs, (Condition A) and 0.0084 mg/dscm for the second set




of three runs (Condition B). The test conditions and analytical results are summarized in Table



S-l.








The efficiency of the scrubber averaged 95.64% for the first set of three runs and 73.88% for




the second set of three runs. Clearly,  the use of foam blanket and polypropylene balls over the



plating solution in Tank No. 8 resulted in a 97.77% decrease in chromium to the scrubber inlet.




The average scrubber  outlet emissions were also reduced by 85.59% compared with average



outlet emissions of the first set of three runs.
                                          u

-------
                                                                                            TABLE S-l

                                                                SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Simple I.D.
1-1
1-2
1-3
Avenge
1-4
1-5
1-6
Avenge
0-1
0-2
O-3
Avenge
O-4
O-5
O-6
Average
Teat
Condition
WOFB/PB
WOFB/PB
WOFB/PB
N/A
WFB/PB
WFB/PB
WFB/PB
N/A
WOFB/PB
WOFB/PB
WOFB/PB
N/A
WFB/PB
WFB/PB
WFB/PB
N/A
Tone Mm.
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Stack
Tcuipciwturc
°F
73
75
76
74.67
66
64
73
67.67
68
74
68
70
59
61
74
64.67
% Moisture
1.1417
1.5100
1.3055
1.3191
1.0094
0.7930
1.2648
1.0224
1.8199
1.7816
0.5611
1.3875
1.3572
1.2067
1.4018
1.3219
XboUnetic
99.6725
98.0572
97.1326
98.2874
95.9109
96.9894
96.71%
96.5400
109.9126
96.5318
94.5008
100.3151
101.4518
94.6178
98.5758
98.2151
Vm.,
dwf
111.5784
112.7425
109.6680
111.3296
113.1701
111.9567
105.1597
110.0955
51.9620
53.4904
51.7545
52.4023
47.5841
50.9027
48.7002
49.0623
Q-
dicfm
2903.95
2982.58
2928.86
2938.46
3060.89
2994.40
2820.45
2958.58
3208.08
3760.21
3716.37
3561.55
3182.80
3650.69
3352.49
3395.33
Total Cr Man
Collected
mg
4.555*
5.346*
5.829*
5.243*
0.130*
0.104*
0.111*
0.115*
0.061*
0.092?
0.0736s
0.0760*
0.010P
0.00938"
0.00952"'
0.00993*
0.0798C
0.0989°
0.0866°
0.0884C
0.01430°
0.01180°
0.00897C"
0.0116?
CONCENTRATION
mf/dacm
1.4416
1.6745
1.8770
1.6644
0.0406
0.0328
0.0373
0.0369
0.0542
0.0653
0.0591
0.0595
0.0106
0.0082
0.0065
0.0084
jiminAUcf
6.30x10*
7.32 x 10-*
8.20x10-*
7.27 X 10*
1.77x10-'
1.43 x 10"5
1.63x10-'
1.61 x IV4
2.37 x 10-'
2.85 x 10"'
2.58 x 10-'
2.60 x 10*
4.64 x 10*
3.58 x 10*
2.84 x 10*
3.69 xlO*
EMISSION RATE
Ib/hr
1.568 x Ifr1
1.871 x 10*
2.059x10*
1.833 x Iff1
4.651 x 10*
3.679x10*
3.938x10*
4.089 z Iff4
6.517x10*
9.96x10*
8.225x10*
7.979 * Iff4
1.265 x 10*
1.119x10*
8.168x10*
1.067 x 10*
Kf/hr
7.113 x 10-'
8.485 x 10-'
9.340 x !»'
8.313 x 10*
2.110x10*
1.669x10*
1.786x10*
1.855x10*
2.956x10*
4.171x10*
3.731x10*
3.619x10*
5.739x10"'
5.078 xia'
3.705 x Ifr'
4.841 x Iff*
      NOTES
      MCP analysis remit
      ' IC/PCR analysis rank
      c GFAA analysis rank
        LEGEND
I-Inlet
O- Outlet
WFB/PB - With Foam Blanket and Polypropylene Balls
WOFB/PB - Without Foam Blanket and Polypropylene Balls
N/A - Not Applicable
•These results appear to be an analytical artifact.  The man coDected for Cr** should not be greater than the man collected for total chromium. This is doe to the fact that the total chromium man la comprised of Cr*' and Cr*' mass.
                                                                                                Hi

-------
                                   SECTION I
                                 INTRODUCTION
The goal of the Electronic Chrome and Grinding Company test was to determine if the addition

of a foam blanket and polypropylene balls to the plating bath would result in reduced chromium

emissions from the outlet of the scrubber.



Testing was conducted during the week of February 17,1992. Emission samples were collected

using a modification of USEPA Method 13-B. Upon completion of field activities, samples were

shipped to Research Triangle Institute Laboratory (RTIL) in Research Triangle Park,  North

Carolina for analysis.   Outlet  samples were  analyzed for hexavalent chromium using  ion

chromatography with a post column reactor (ICPCR).  Outlet samples  were also analyzed for

total chromium, using graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA). Inlet samples were analyzed

for total chromium  using inductively coupled plasma emission spectrometry (ICP).  Scrubber

water  samples and plating tank solutions were also analyzed using ICP.



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

Inc. (AST), Electronic Chrome and Grinding Company (ECGC), Midwest Research Institute

(MRI), and the U.S. EPA, Emission Measurement Branch (EMB).

-------
                                   SECTION H

                              PROCESS OPERATION
PROCESS DESCRIPTION

Electronic Chrome and Grinding Company is a medium-size job shop  that performs hard

chromium plating of industrial rolls, hydraulic cylinders, and miscellaneous parts. The shop has

eight  hard  chromium plating tanks.   The facility  operates 1  shift/day, 5  days/week,  52

weeks/year.



During this source test program, Tank No. 8 was tested. Tank No. 8 is 2.2 meters (m) (7.3 feet

[ft]) long, 1.1 m (3.5 ft) wide, and 1.8 m (6.0 ft) deep and holds approximately 3,900 liters

(1,030 gallons) of plating solution.   The plating  solution consists  of chromic acid at a

concentration of 240  grams per liter (g/L) (32 ounces per gallon [oz/gal]  of water).  Sulfuric

acid, a plating bath catalyst, is also present at a concentration of 2.4 g/L (0.32 oz/gal). The

normal plating bath temperature is 54°C (130°F).  The plating tank is  typically operated with

a foam blanket and polypropylene balls covering the surface of the plating  solution. The foam
  •
blanket used in  the plating tank is Fumetrol 101, manufactured by Harshaw M&T, Inc. The

polypropylene balls used in the plating tank are 2.54 centimeters (cm) (1-inch [in.]) in diameter.

The tank is equipped with two rectifiers that are rated at 6,000 and 2,000 amperes, respectively.

However, only the 6,000-ampere rectifier is in active use on the tank .  In  addition, the tank is

equipped with a heating and cooling  system and is a air agitated to  maintain uniform bath

temperature and composition.  An overhead hoist is used to transfer parts in and out  of the

plating tank.

-------
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL








Plating Tank No. 8 is equipped with double-sided draft hoods to capture the chromic acid mist



generated during plating.  The ventilation rate on the plating tank is 85 cubic meters per minute




mVmin) (3,000 cubic feet per minute [ftVmin]). The ventilation hoods on the tank are ducted




to a single packed-bed scrubber that was manufactured and installed in 1982 by Tellkamp, Inc.,




in Santa Fe Springs,  California.








As the gas stream enters the scrubber, the velocity of the gas stream is reduced, and recirculated



water is sprayed countercurrent to the gas stream through a series of 16 spray nozzles to enlarge




the chromic acid mist droplets prior to the packed-bed.  The packed-bed is 1.4 m (4.5 ft) high,



l.lm (3.7 ft) wide,  and 0.9 m (3 ft) deep for a total packing volume of  1.4 m3 (50 ft3).  The




packing material used in the scrubber is 8.9-centimeter (cm) (3.5-inch [in.]) spherical-type mass



packing made by Lanpac. As the gas stream flows through the packed-bed, the chromic acid




droplets impinge on  the packing  material and drain to the bottom of the  unit.   Following  the



packed-bed section is a chevron-blade mist eliminator used to remove any reentrained water




carried  over  from  the  packed-bed.   Recirculated  water  is  drained   from  the  scrubber




approximately once per day and utilized in the plating tank as make  up for plating solution



evaporation losses.

-------
PROCESS CONDITIONS DURING TESTING








Three test runs were conducted to measure chromium concentrations at the inlet and outlet of




the scrubber under the following conditions: Condition A - without a  foam blanket  or




polypropylene balls in  the  plating tank; and Condition B - with  a foam blanket and




polypropylene balls in the plating tank.  All  six test runs were approximately 2  hours in



duration.  Test run No. 6 was  interrupted for approximately 5 minutes due to the rectifier




tripping off. All of the test runs were interrupted briefly to change test ports. No other process



interruptions occurred  during sampling.








Prior to chromium emissions testing, the scrubber was drained and cleaned with fresh water.




In addition, the ductwork connecting the tank to the scrubber was also washed down prior to



testing.  After cleaning, the scrubber was recharged with fresh water.  The first three emission




test runs were then conducted without a foam blanket or polypropylene balls in the plating tank.



Following the completion of these test runs, the scrubber and ductwork were recleaned, and the




scrubber was recharged with fresh water.  The next day, the three test runs were conducted with




a foam blanket and polypropylene balls in the plating tank.








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



current, and plating bath temperature.  During each test run, the same five dummy parts were




plated in the plating tank.  Fumetrol 101, manufactured by Harshaw M&T was the foam blanket




used in the tank during the last three test runs.  During these runs, the coverage and thickness



of the foam blanket and polypropylene balls were also monitored. In addition, the scrubber was




visually inspected prior to each series of test runs to ensure proper operation during testing. No



malfunctions or deficiencies were found during  these inspections. Process data sheets

-------
documenting the process and control device operating parameters during mass emission testing




are presented in Appendix E.  A technical information brochure on the use of Fumetrol 101 is




also included in Appendix E.  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




tank during each test run is calculated in terms of ampere-hours and include in Appendix E.  A



tabular summary of the total current values is presented in Table 2-2.








Composite samples were taken from the plating tank and the scrubber recirculation sump to




determine the chromic acid concentration during each mass emission test run.  The chromic acid



concentration of the composite sample is reported in Section in of this report.

-------
             TABLE 2-1.

   AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS
MONITORED DURING EACH MASS EMISSION
   TEST RUN FOR PLATING TANK NO. 8
       WITHOUT FOAM BLANKET
Run No.
1
2
3
Average
Operating
voltage, volts
6.3
6.1
5.8
6.1
Operating
current, amperes
4,800
5,100
5,100
5,000
Operating
temp., °F
133
137
138
136
        WITH FOAM BLANKET
Run No.
4
5
6
Average
Operating
voltage, volts
5.5
5.4
5.5
5.5
Operating
current, amperes
5,000
5,100
5,100
5,066
Operating
temp., °F
136
146
140
141

-------
                                  TABLE 2-2.

                    TOTAL AMPERE-HOURS SUPPLIED TO
                     PLATING TANK NO. 8 DURING MASS
                             EMISSION TEST RUNS
Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total Current, Ampere-Hours*
Inlet
9,600
10,200
10,200
10,100
10,200
10,100
Outlet
9,600
10,200
10,200
10,100
10,200
10,100
    Total current (ampere-hours) is calculated by: (1) multiplying the current (amperes) by the
actual time of testing (hours) at that particular current and (2) totaling the ampere-hour values
for each time interval of the entire test run.  The total ampere-hours calculated will not equal
the ampere-hours from the ampere-hour meter due to the differences between the sampling time
and the actual time required to complete the test.  The sampling time and the time required to
perform the test are different due to down time for port changes and other process interruptions.

-------
                                  SECTION m

               SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Simultaneous sample collections at the inlet and at the outlet of the scrubber under normal

operating conditions of the plating process and control system were conducted at ECGC.  Six

(6) tests were conducted at each sampling site.  A sampling time of approximately two hours

was employed on each run to ensure collection of adequate quantities of chromium sample at

each site.



In addition to the chromium emission samples, grab samples of the operating plating bath and

scrubber water were collected during each sampling run.  All samples were later analyzed off-

site for total chromium. Graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry was used to analyze

for total chromium on  the outlet samples.  Inductively coupled plasma emission spectrometry

was used to analyze inlet samples, scrubber water samples and tank samples.  Outlet samples

were also analyzed for hexavalent chromium using ion chromatography with a post column

reactor.
  •


Emission concentrations at the inlet averaged 1.66 milligrams (mg) per dry standard cubic meter

(dscm) for the first set of three runs and averaged 0.0369 mg/dscm for the second set of three

runs.  Emission concentrations at the outlet averaged 0.0595 mg/dscm for the first set of three

runs, and 0.0084 mg/dscm for the second set of three runs.  The efficiency, using mass emission

rates expressed as Ib/hr, of the control device averaged 95.6 percent for the first set of three

runs and 73.9 percent for the  second set of three runs.

-------
The addition of polypropylene balls combined with a foam blanket reduced average emissions



from the plating tank by 97.8 percent.  This meant that less chromic acid entered the inlet side




of the scrubber.   The average outlet  emissions were also reduced  by 86.5 percent when




compared with the average outlet emissions of the first set of runs.








The chromium removal efficiencies of the two sets of runs are misleading. The first set of runs




had the higher average removal efficiency and also the higher average emission rate at the outlet.



The second set of runs had the lower average efficiency rate and also had the lower average




emission rate at the outlet.   The concentration of total chromium at the inlet of the scrubber




decreased significantly (97.8%) due to the use of the foam blanket and polypropylene balls.








Summary of Stack Gas Conditions




Stack gas conditions at each sampling location are presented in Table 3-1.  Volumetric flow rates



at each location showed some variations between runs.  At the inlet, the velocity averaged 46.5




feet per second (fps), with an average temperature of 71 °F and an average moisture content of




1.17%.








At the outlet, the velocity averaged 20.08 fps, with average temperatures of 67°F and an average




moisture content of 1.35%.








The stack gases at all sampling locations were  essentially  ambient air and, therefore  were




assigned a dry molecular weight of 28.95 Ib/lb mole.   Variations of isokinetic sampling rates




were within allowable limits on all sampling runs.

-------
Calculation of Emission Results

The dry standard cubic feet sample volumes  (V^  from the dry gas meters and the sample
mass collected (micrograms) were used to determine concentrations (mg/dscm and grain/dscf).
The stack dry volumetric flow rates   (Q^  and concentrations were used to calculate mass
emission rates (Ib/hr and kg/hr).

Summary of Scrubber Removal Efficiencies

Chromium removal efficiencies for the scrubber system were determined by simultaneously
sampling the inlet and the outlet of the scrubber.  The mass emission rates were used to calculate
removal efficiencies. Removal efficiency is represented by the equation:
                                        C,-C0
                                  RE  =  -!— ^ x 100
Where
   RE = % Removal Efficiency
   C; = Mass emission rate at the scrubber inlet, Ib/hr
   C0 = Mass emission rate at the scrubber outlet, Ib/hr


Mass emission rates are presented in Tables 3-2. and 3-3.  The resultant removal efficiencies
are reported in Table 3-4.   A summary  of the emissions from the scrubber, expressed as
milligrams/ampere-hours, is presented in Table 3-5. Both  ICP and GFAA are reported to be
compatible techniques and therefore analytical results obtained from either can be used to make
scrubber efficiency calculations.
                                         10

-------
Plating Tank Solution and Scruhher Ri








During each sampling run, a grab sample of the plating solution was obtained from plating Tank




No. 8. A sample of rinse water was obtained from the scrubber.  In addition, during the runs,




scrubber water samples were obtained at the beginning, middle, and end of the sampling period.




The scrubber water and plating tank solution sample results are shown in Table 3-6.
                                         11

-------
                                                                    TABLE 3-1.
                                                  SUMMARY OF STACK GAS CONDITIONS
                                                                       INLET
Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average
Velocity
fpf
45.9845
47.4476
46.6692
47.8253
46.6225
44.6702
46.5365
Stack
Temp.
°F
73
75
76
66
64
73
71
Flow Rate
acfm*
2,949.48
3,043.33
2,993.40
3,067.56
2,990.41
2,865.19
2,984.90
dscfin*
2,903.95
2,982.58
2,928.86
3,060.89
2,994.40
2,820.45
2,948.52
Moisture
%
1.1417
1.5100
1.3055
1.0094
0.7930
1.2648
1.1707
%
bokinetic
Variation
99.6725
98.0572
97.1326
95.9109
96.9894
96.7196
97.4137
                                                                      OUTLET
Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average
Velocity
fpf
18.5401
21.9701
21.4695
18.0805
20.8400
19.5972
20.0829
Stack
Temp.
"F
68
74
68
59
61
74
67
Flow Rate
acfinb
3,210.72
3,804.72
3,718.02
3,131.12
3,609.01
3,393.78
3,477.90
dscfin"
3,208.08
3,760.21
3,716.37
3,182.80
3,650.69
3,352.49
3,478.44
Moisture
%
1.8199
1.7816
0.5611
1.3572
1.2067
1.4018
1J547
%
Isold ne tic
Variation
109.9126
96.5318
94.5008
101.4518
94.6178
98.5758
99.2651
'Feet per second at stack conditions
'Actual cubic feet per minute at stack conditions
'Dry standard cubic feet per minute at 68°F and 29.92' Hg
                                                                         12

-------
                                                                      TABLE 3-2

                                                          TOTAL CHROMIUM CONCENTRATIONS
                                                                        AND
                                                               MASS EMISSION RATES AT
                                                               INLET USING ICP ANALYSIS
Run No.
1*
2*
3*
Average

4**
5**
6**
Average
Total Mass
Collected
Mg
4,555
5,346
5,829
5,243

130
104
111
115
Dry Gas
Volume
dscf
111.5784
112.7425
109.6680
111.3296

113.1701
111.9567
105.1597
110.0955
Volumetric
Flow
Rate
dscfm
2,903.95
2,982.58
2,928.86
2,938.463

3,060.89
2,994.40
2,820.45
2,958.58
Emission
Concentration
Grain/dscf
6.30 x 10"
7.32 x 10"4
8.20 x 10*
7.27 x 104

1.77 x 10-5
1.43 x 10-5
1.63 x ias
1.61 x 10*
Emission
Concentration
mg/dscm
1.4416
1.6745
1.8770
1.6644

0.0406
0.0328
0.0373
0.0369
Mass
Emission
Rate
Ib/hr
1.568 x ID"2
1.871 x ia2
2.059 x ia2
1.83 xlO4

4.651 x 10-*
3.679 x 10-4
3.938 x 10-4
4.09 x 10*
Mass
Emission
Rate
Kg/hr
7.113x 10"3
8.485 x 10-3
9.340 x 10-3
8.31 x 10*

2.110 x 104
1.669 x 10-4
1.786 x 10*
1.85 x 104
 * Without Foam Blanket/and Polypropylene Balls
""" With Foam Blanket/and Polypropylene Balls
                                                                         13

-------
                                                       TABLE 3-3

                             TOTAL CHROMIUM CONCENTRATIONS AND MASS EMISSION RATES AT
                              OUTLET USING GRAPHITE FURNACE ATOMIC ABSORPTION ANALYSIS
Run No.
1*
2*
3*
Average

4**
5**
6**
Average
Total Mass
Collected
Mg
79.80
98.90
86.60
88.43

14.30
11.80
8.97
11.69
Dry Gas
Volume
dscf
51.9620
53.4904
51.7545
52.4023

47.5841
50.9027
48.7002
49.0623
Volume
Flow
Rate
dscfm
3,208.08
3,760.21
3,716.37
3561.55

3,182.80
3,650.69
3,352.49
3,395.33
Emission
Concentration
Grain/dscf
2.37 x ia5
2.85 x 10-5
2.58 x 10-3
2.60 x 10*

4.64 x 10*
3.58 x 10*
2.84 x 10*
3.69 x 10-*
Emission
Concentration
mg/dscm
0.0542
0.0653
0.0591
0.0595

0.0106
0.0082
0.0065
0.0084
Mass Emission
Rate
Ib/hr
6.517 x 1O4
9.196x 10*
8.225 x 104
7.98 x Ifr4

1.265 x 104
1.119x 104
8.168x ia3
1.07 x 10"
Mass Emission
Rate
Kg/hr
2.956 x 104
4.171x 104
3.731 x 104
3.62 x 10*

5.739 x ia3
5.078 x 10-3
3.705 x 10-3
4.84 x 10*
 * Without Foam Blanket/and Polypropylene Balls
** With Foam Blanket/and Polypropylene Balls
                                                           14

-------
                                           TABLE 3-4
                        SUMMARY OF SCRUBBER REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES

                           Total Cr - ICP Analysis for Inlet - GFAA for Outlet
WOFB/PB
Average
WFB/PB
Average

Run No. 1
Inlet
Outlet
Run No. 2
Inlet
Outlet
Run No. 3
Inlet
Outlet

Mass Emission Rate
Ib/hr
1.568 x 10-2
6.517 x 10-4
1.871 x 10*
9.196x 1O4
2.059 x 10-2
8.225 x 1O4
Removal Efficiency
%
95.84
95.08
96.01
95.64

Run No. 4
Inlet
Outlet
Run No. 5
Inlet
Outlet
Run No. 6
Inlet
Outlet

4.651 x 104
1.265 x 104
3.679 x lO4
1.119x 104
3.938 x 104
8.168x 10"5

72.80
69.58
79.26
73.88
LEGEND
WOFB/PB - Without Foam Blanket and Polypropylene Balls
WFB/PB - With Foam Blanket and Polypropylene Balls
                                               15

-------
                                                 TABLE 3-5

                                     SUMMARY OF THE SCRUBBER EMISSIONS
                                    EXPRESSED AS MILLIGRAMS/AMPERE-HOUR
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
TEST
CONDITION
WOFB/PB
WOFB/PB
WOFB/PB
WFB/PB
WFB/PB
WFB/PB
OUTLET
(mg/amp-hr)
8.312 x 10*
9.696 x 10-6
8.49 x 10-*
1.415x 10*
1.156x 10*
8.88 x 10-7
LEGEND

WOFB/PB - Without foam blanket and polypropylene balls
WFB/PB  - With foam blanket and polypropylene balls
                                                     16

-------
                 TABLE 3-6

TOTAL CHROMIUM QUANTIFIED IN SCRUBBER WATER
 AND PLATING TANK SOLUTION SAMPLES USING ICP
SAMPLE
IDENTIFICATION
Scrub Water Run 1
Scrub Water Run 2
Scrub Water Run 3
Scrub Water Run 4
Scrub Water Run 5
Scrub Water Run 6
Average
Tank Run 1
Tank Run 2
Tank Run 3
Tank Run 4
Tank Run 5
Tank Run 6
Average
TOTAL CHROMIUM
CONCENTRATION (/xg/ml)
100.00
124.00
133.00
49.50
46.00
51.30
83.97
1.32 x 104
l.lSxlO4
1.20 x 104
1.17x 104
9.50 x 103
1.17x 104
1.165 x 104
                    17

-------
                                   SECTION IV



                              SAMPLING LOCATIONS
The  location and number  of traverse points to  be sampled were  determined  using  EPA



Reference Method  1  "Sample and  Velocity  Traverses  for  Stationary Sources."  These



representative measurement sites were determined  for both the inlet and the outlet sampling



ducts.  The inlet measurement site was on a horizontal duct which was circular with a diameter



of 14 inches. The sample site was located just before the scrubber approximately 10 feet from



the downstream disturbance and 5 feet from the upstream  disturbance.  It was determined and



calculated using Method 1, that there would be eight traverse points sampled; four points along



the vertical  and horizontal diameters. Since  the test runs was two hours long, a six  point



traverse was chosen to simplify time keeping for recording the data.  Figure 4-1 shows  stack



dimensions.  Figure 4-2 shows the locations of inlet traverse points.  Figure 4-3 shows the inlet



measurement site.



The outlet measurement site was located approximately 2 feet from the upstream disturbance and



approximately 4 feet from the downstream disturbance.  The outlet from the scrubber was a



horizontal, plywood duct measuring 23.75 inches high and 17.5 inches wide.  Four port  holes



were cut into the side  of the duct and six points were sampled  at each port according to EPA



Method 1 criteria.  Figure 4-4 shows the outlet dimensions and sampling ports.   Figure 4-5



shows the locations of outlet traverse points.



The  absence of cyclonic flow was verified prior to sampling using EPA Reference Method 1.



Liquid samples were collected from the plating tank during each of the six runs.  Samples were



also  collected from the scrubber solution tank.  A composite sample of the scrubber water was



taken at the beginning, middle, and end of each run.  There were twelve samples taken in total



(six plating tank samples/six scrubber water samples).  The samples were labeled, sealed and



then  sent to  RTIL for analysis.
                                          18

-------
STACK Oim_ET
                                     SCRUBBER
                                                         STACK INLET
                                                          14 IN DIAMETER
                                                              v
                FIGURE 4-1 STACK DIMENSIONS
                      (DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE)
                               19

-------
CO

V
 A

 O)
    A
    O)
    0)
    V
                 14.0"
                                          CM
                                          V
FIGURE 4-2 INLET TRAVERSE POINT LOCATIONS
                 20

-------
STACK OUTLET
                                          SCRUBBER
                                                              12 PT. AT EACH PORT
                                                              TOP SAMPLE PORT B
                                                                   o	

                                                                   O  A
                                                               5FT   10FT   
-------
V
•"»
8
  t>17.5 IN
             STACK OUTLET

            2FT.     4FT.   <
SAMPLE PORTS

  0-A
  ° -B 6PTS.AT
  O -C EACH PORT
  O-D
A
                                                     SCRUBBER
                                                                           STACK INLET
     NOTE: 1) THE OUTLET WAS CONSTRUCTED OF WOOD.
          2) THE OUTLET MEASUREMENT SITE WAS APPROX. 2 FT. FROM THE
           UPSTREAM DISTURBANCE AND APPROX. 4 FT. FROM THE
           DOWNSTREAM DISTURBANCE.
                FIGURE 4-4 OUTLET DIMENSIONS AND SAMPLING PORTS
                                    (DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE)
                                             22

-------
X
•>
*
•
5>
csi
7
<

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

23.75
c
2.9686"
91
1
0
O
O
0
O

I--
< 5.9375" >



RGURE 4-5 OUTLET TRAVERSE POINT LOCATIONS



                23
                                                                        00

-------
                                  SECTION V
             SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
EPA Reference Methods 1, 2, 4 and a Modification of 13-B were used during this test.  These
methods can be found in 40 CFR, Parts 53-60.  Method 1 was used to determine sample and
velocity traverses for stationary sources.  Method 2 was used for the determination of stack gas
velocity and volumetric flow rate using a type "S" pilot tube.  Method 4 was used to determine
the moisture content in stack gases. The Modified U.S. EPA Method 13-B sample train was
used to collect chromium emission samples. The sample train consisted of a glass button-hook
nozzle, an unheated Pyrex glass-lined probe, and a series of four impingers.  The first, third and
fourth  are  modified Greenburg-Smith impingers.    The second impinger  was  a  standard
Greenburg-Smith impinger.

The first and second impinger each contained 100 ml of 0. IN NaOH.  The third impinger was
empty and the fourth impinger contained approximately 200 grams of silica gel. The remainder
of the  sampling system consisted of a vacuum pump, dry gas meter, calibrated orifice and
related temperature and pressure  indicating apparatus, which was  used to determine dry gas
sample volume,  stack gas temperature, volumetric flow rates  and isokinetic sampling rates.
Figure 5-1 shows a schematic of the Modified U.S. EPA Method 13-B sample train.

Runs were conducted at both the inlet and outlet locations.  Method 3 (gas composition) was not
used since ambient air is the main constituent in the gas stream. The ambient air was assigned
the dry molecular weight of 28.95 Ib/lb mole.  The stack gas velocity was determined during
each sampling run.  Since the stack gas was ambient air, an initial moisture estimate of 1 % was
used for determining the sampling rate.

                                        24

-------

CONTAINER
I.D.
Impingerfl
Impinferf2
Impingertt
Impinjerf4
CONTAINER
CONTENT
Modified Orenburg-Smith-*
100mlofO.lNN.OH
Greeaburg-Smith -•
lOOmlofO.lNNaOH
Modified Greenburg-Smith-*
Empty
Modified Grecnburg-Smith-»
200 grams of Silica Gel
                                                                VACUUM
                                                                  LINE
                                                            ^VACUUM
                                                              GAUGE
                                                      MAIN VALVt
             our r£jr
Figure 5-1.  Schematic of the Modified U.S. EPA Method 13-B Sampling Train
                                    25

-------
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES








Upon completion  of the field activities, the chromium emission test samples were packed in




coolers and submitted to a contract laboratory, RTIL, to be analyzed for total chromium and




hexavalent chromium.  Total chromium analysis was performed on inlet, tank and  scrubber



solution samples using ICP.  Outlet samples were analyzed for total chromium using GFAA and




hexavalent chromium using ion chromatography with a post column reactor.
                                       26

-------
                                  SECTION VI
                      QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES
The quality assurance activities for this project were performed to assure the accuracy of data
collected.  The procedures used are contained  in the "Quality Assurance Handbook for Air
Pollution Measurement Systems," Volume ffl, "Stationary Source Specific Methods." Company-
specific quality assurance activities were  also conducted during our testing.

The QA program has two components: 1) field-related component; and 2) contract laboratory
component.  A discussion of the field-related QA component focusing on field procedures is
given below.  The contract laboratory component will be provided in letter format directly to
the EPA Task Manager, Mr.  Frank Clay.

FIELD-RELATED QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES
Our field related QA procedures include:
     • Calibrating meters (pre and post testing)
     • Calibrating the triple beam balance
     • Leak testing (pre and post run testing)
     • Measuring inside diameters of nozzles using a micrometer
     • Cleaning and maintaining sample train equipment on a frequent basis
     • Inspecting sample train prior to sampling
     • Reviewing and discussing test plan prior to sampling
     • Reviewing field data at the end of each work day
     • Preparing an accurate and detailed "Chain of Custody"

Discussions of the field blanks, Chain of Custody and sample train components are provided
below.
                                       27

-------
FIELD BLANK QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES

Reagent blanks of 0. IN NaOH absorbing solutions were prepared in the field using deionized
water and NaOH pellets "sealed" from Fisher Scientific. After mixing the solution, the solution
was transferred to a polyethylene bottle.  The 0. IN NaOH was used to wash the sampling train
components after each test run.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY
The samples collected at the test site were labeled, sealed and then placed in a package.  The
package was then filled with vermiculite and sealed using Chain  of Custody tape. This process
was performed to maintain the integrity of all the samples collected.

RTIL personnel informed AST by phone that all the samples had arrived  safely, unsealed and
undamaged. A copy of the Chain of Custody is included in Appendix D.

SAMPLE TRAIN COMPONENTS

The equipment used in the tests including nozzles, pitot tubes, dry gas meters, orifices, and
thermocouples were calibrated in accordance with calibration procedures specified in applicable
EPA Reference Methods prior to, and at the completion of, the test program.  The equipment
calibration data are presented in Appendix J.
                                        28

-------
TEST PROGRAM PERSONNEL
The following is a list of the field team personnel involved in the completion of this test

program:


     Robert E. Turner - Program Manager, AST

     Thomas Yaroch - Assistant Project Manager, AST

     James Parker - Technician

     Jim Dini - Meter Reader

     Chuck Hames - Meter Reader

     Robin Barker -  Midwest Research Institute


The following is a summary of field events:


      2/16/92      Traveled to Santa Fe Springs, CA

      2/17/92      Inventoried equipment; Prepared site

      2/18/92      Conducted three, two-hour Measurement  Runs at Scrubber Inlet and
                   Outlet; Recovered and stored emission samples

      2/19/92      Conducted three, two-hour Measurement  Runs at Scrubber Inlet and
                   Outlet; Recovered and stored emission samples

      2/20/92      Restored site;
                   Packed and  shipped equipment

      2/21/92      Traveled to Atlanta, GA.
                                        29

-------
     ERRATA SHEET FOR ELECTRONIC CHROME AND GRINDING TEST REPORT

     In February  1992,  the U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
performed a source test  for hexavalent chromium emissions from the
scrubber at the Electronic Chrome and Grinding Company in Santa Fe
Springs, California.  The purpose of the test was to determine if
the addition  of polypropylene  balls  and a  foam blanket  to  the
plating tank bath would reduce hexavalent chromium emissions from
the scrubber  to  a level  that would  be acceptable  by  the  air
regulatory agency of the State of California.

     After the final report of the source test was distributed, an
error  was  found  in Chapter  3;   Table,  3-5,  which  summarizes
scrubber emissions in milligrams per ampere-hour, was found to be
in error.  Table 3-5 has been revised to present the correct data
and is attached; it completely replaces the original Table 3-5.

-------
                                      TABLE 3-5
                                                               (
                          SUMMARY OF THE SCRUBBER EMISSIONS
                       EXPRESSED AS MILLIGRAMS PER AMPHERE-HOUR
RUN #  CONDITION"




  1      WOFB-PB

  2      WOFB-PB


  3      WOFB-PB



  4      WFB-PB

  5      WFB-PB

  6      WFB-PB
EMISSION
RATE
g per Hr)b
295.6
417.1
373.1
57.39
50.78
37.05
TOTAL CURRENT
IN AMP-HOURS
DURING TEST
9600
10,200
10,200
10,000
10,200
10,200
TEST
LENGTH
( HOURS )
2
2
2
2
2
>
2
AMP-HOURS
PER HOUR
4800
5100
5100
5000
5100
5100
Mg/Amp-hourc




 0.062

 0.082

 0.073



 0.011

 0.010

 0.007
        WOFB-PB = Without foam blanket or polypropylene balls
        WFB-PB = With foam blanket and polypropylene balls

        Emission rate in milligrams per hour = Kilograms per hour  x  10* milligrams per kilogram

        Milligrams per amp-hour = Milligrams per hour
                                  Amp-hour per hour

-------