### U.S.**Environmental Protection** **Agency**

### COMMON**SENSE INITIATIVE** **Metal Finishing** **Subcommittee CLEANER** **CHEAPER SMARTER** **In Cooperation** **with**

### The**National Institute** **of Standards** **Technology Manufacturing** **Extension Partnership** 

# HARD**CHROME POLLUTION** **PREVENTION DEMONSTRATION** **PROJECT REPORT** **for**

# Plating**Perceptions, Inc.** **Prepared by** **CAMP, Inc.'s** 

### Great**Lakes Manufacturing** **Technology Center** **January 20,** **1998 Notice** **The U.S.** **Environmental Protection** **Agency, through** **its Office** **of Research** **and Development, partially** **funded, managed,** **and collaborated** **in the** **research described** **here under** **Assistance Agreement** **Number DW-13936163** **to the** **National Institute** **of Standards** **and Technology** **Manufacturing Extension** **Partnership. This** **report has** **been subjected** **to the** **EPA's peer** **review and** **administrative review** **and has** **been approved** **for publication** **as an** **EPA document.** **The contents** **of this** **report are** **offered as** **guidance and** **source for** **opportunities. CAMP,** **Inc./ The** **Great Lakes** **Manufacturing Technology** **Center, the** **Industrial Technology** **Institute, Sandia** **National Laboratories,** **the Northeast** **Midwest Institute,** **and all** **technical sources** **referenced in** **this report** **do not:** **(a) make** **any warranty** **or representation,** **expressed or** **implied, with** **respect to** **the accuracy,** **completeness, or** **usefulness of** **the information** **contained in** **this report,** **or that** **the use** **of any** **information, apparatus,** **method, or** **process disclosed** **in this** **report may** **not infringe** **on privately-held** **rights; (b)** **assume any** **liabilities with** **respect to** **the use** **of any** **information, apparatus,** **method'or process** **disclosed in** **this report;** **(c) give** **any assurance** **regarding the** **company's compliance** **with federal,** **state, or** **local regulations.** **This report** **does not** **reflect official** **view or** **policy of** **the above-mentioned** **institutions. Mention** **of trade** **names or** **commercial products** **does not** **constitute endorsement** **or recommendation** **of use.** 

### Abstract

### The**EPA Common** **Sense Initiative** **(CSI) is** **cooperative effort** **between government** **industry, environmental** **and other** **stakeholder groups** **to find** **"cleaner, cheaper** **smarter" approaches** **to environmental** **management in** **industrial sectors.** **The CSI** **Metal Finishing** 

### Subcommittee**endorsed and** **provided technical** **oversight for the** **Hard Chrome** **Pollution**

## Prevention**Demonstration Project.** **The purpose** **of this** **Project is** **to assist** **hard chrome** **metal platers** **to cost-effectively** **comply with,** **or do** **better than,** **EPA's MACT** **Standard for** **Chromium Emissions.** 

## In**this Project,** **five chromium** **emission prevention/control** **devices were** **tested that** **cover the** **spectrum of** **prevention/control techniques** **currently in** **use in** **hard chrome** **plating facilities** **The Project** **found that** **dual- and** **tri-meshpad mist** **eliminators and** **chemical mist** **suppressants**

### were**effective in** **Umiting chromium** **emissions to** **the levels,** **or better** **than the** **levels, specified** **in the** **Standard, i.e.,** **0.030 milligrams** **per dry** **standard cubic** **meter of air** **(mg/dscm) for** **"small"**

## faculties**with "existing"** **tanks, and** **0.015 mg/dscm** **for "small"** **facilities with** **"new" tanks** **or 'large"** **facilities with** **"existing" or** **"new" tanks.** 

### All**activities related** **to the** **Project were** **developed by** **jhe Project** **participants with** **input from** **the management** **of the** **participating electroplating** **companies, and** **reviewed by** **an EPA** 

## selected**peer review** **panel of** **representatives from** **industry, equipment and** **chemical suppliers** **9nn araHamto** **rtr and** **academia.**

### The**following report** **details the** **portion of** **the Project** **that investigated** **the use** **of dual-** **meshpad mist** **eliminator and** **also tri-meshpad** **mist eliminator.** **in Acknowledgments** 

### This**Project originated** **as result** **of an** **inter-governmental agency** **agreement (Assistance** 

### Agreement**No. DW-13936163)** **between the** **Environmental Protection** **Agency's (EPA)** **Office of** **Research and** **Development (ORD)** **and the** **National Institute** **of Standards** **and Technology** 

### (NIST)**Manufacturing Extension** **Partnership (MEP)** **to conduct** **demonstration project** **of pollution** **prevention technologies** **that would** **assist typical** **metal finishers** **to achieve** **improved environmental** **and economic** **results.**

### These**two groups** **then joined** **with the** **EPA Office** **of Pollution** **Prevention and** **Toxics**

### (OPPT)**design for** **the Environment** **(DfE) Program,** **the Department** **of Energy** **(DoE) Office** **of Industrial** **Technologies (OIT),** **industry (National** **Association of** **Metal Finishers,** **American Electroplaters** **and Surface** **Finishers), and** **other parties in** **Technology Reinvestment** **Project**

### (TRP)**called the** **Energy, Environment,** **and Manufacturing** **(EEM) Project.** **The EEM** **Project is** **one of** **the most** **significant collaborations** **of these** **three Federal** **agencies with** **the private** **sector for** **energy, environmental** **and economic** **benefits.**

### When**the EPA's** **Common Sense** **Initiative was** **created, it** **seemed natural** **that the** **Metal**

### Finishing**Subcommittee would** **endorse this** **project as** **one that** **the Subcommittee's** **Research and** **Technology Work** **Group would** **oversee. The** **result of** **the Work** **Group's and** **the**

### Subcommittee's**deliberations was** **that the** **demonstration portion** **of the** **EEM Project** **would focus** **on evaluating** **the effectiveness** **and cost** **of pollution** **prevention techniques** **in helping** **typical hard** **chrome metal** **finishers comply** **with, or** **do better** **than, the** **EPA-promulgated MACT** **Standard. In** **addition, endorsement** **of the** **Project by** **the CSI** **Metal Finishing** **Subcommittee resulted** **in extensive** **peer review** **by industry,** **environmental, and** **academic experts.** **The Hard** **Chrome Pollution** **Prevention Demo** **Project was** **managed by** **two centers,** 

### specifically**by Dr.** **Kenneth Saulter** **at the** **Industrial Technology** **Institute (ITI)** **in Ann** **Arbor, Michigan,** **and Larry** **Boyd and** **Dr. Gus** **Eskamani at** **CAMP, Inc.'s** **Great Lakes** **Manufacturing Technology** **Center (GLMTC)** **in Cleveland,** **Ohio. The** **Project Team** **included James** **Hensley**

### and**Christine Branson** **at ITI** **and Lisa** **D' Agostino** **at CAMP/GLMTC.** **Brian Sweeney** **of NIST** **MEP provided** **crucial oversight** **of the** **Project and** **served as** **the liaison** **between the** **Project managers,** **i.e., NIST** **and EPA.** **Joe Breen** **of OPPT/DfE** **made available** **critical analytical** **capabilities.**

### The**CSI Metal** **Finishing Subcommittee** **Research and** **Technology Work** **Group is** **co chaired** **by Brian** **Manty of** **Concurrent Technologies** **Corporation and** **Tim Oppelt,** **Director of** **the ORD** **National Risk** **Management Research** **Laboratory (NRMRL).** **Dave Ferguson** **of the** **ORD NRMRL** **is the** **EPA Project** **Officer for** **the Project.** **Paul Shapiro,** **ORD-CSI Coordinator** **and Co-Lead** **of the** **Metal Finishing** **Sector, provided** **guidance for** **the overall Project.** **The work** **described in** **this report** **was performed** **by the** **CAMP/GLMTC, in** **collaboration with** **ITI, Sandia** **National Laboratories,** **and the** **Northeast Midwest** **Institute. IV** 

### Table**of Contents** **Abstract Acknowledgments** **Tables I.** **n. m.** **IV. v.** **VI. vn.** **vm. Introduction** **A. Project** **Goal B.** **Project Objectives** **C. Project** **Background Project** **Executive Summary** **Site Selection** **Site Description** **A. Dry,** **Dual-Meshpad Mist** **Eliminator B.** **Wet, Tri-Meshpad** **Mist Eliminator** **Anticipated Company/Industry** **Benefits Work** **Plan and** **Deliverables Data** **Collection and** **Analysis Plan** **Results and** **Discussion of** **Results A.** **B. C.** **D. E.** **F. G.** **Outlet Hexavalent** **Chromium Emissions** **Comparison of** **Method 306** **and Method** **306A Prevention/Control** **Device Efficiency** 

### Above-Tank**Total Chromium** **Air Concentrations** 

### Prevention/Control**Device Inlet** **Hexavalent Chromium** **Concentrations Freeboard** **Ventilation Rates** **DC. PPI's** **Pollution Prevention** **Features X.** **Conclusions XI.** **Post-Project Summary** **XII. Responsibilities** **and Funding** **REFERENCES**

### Appendix**A: SUMMARY** **OF BASELINE** **METHOD 306** **CHROME DEMO** **TESTS Appendix** **B: SUMMARY** **OF BASELINE** **METHOD 306A** **CHROME DEMO** **TESTS Appendix** **C: ADDITIONAL** **BASELINE TEST** **RESULTS Appendix** **D: GLOSSARY** **OF TERMS** 

### Appendix**E: ABBREVIATIONS** **USED IN** **THIS DOCUMENT** **Appendix F:** **CONTACT INFORMATION** **Page iii** **iv vi** **10 10** **10 11** **11 12** **12 13** **13 14** **14 15** **16 17** **18 19** **20 23** **25 Tables** **Table 1.** **USEPA Chromium** **Emissions MACT** **Standard Limits** **Table 2.** **Prevention/Control Devices** **Used to** **Determine the** **Standard Table** **3. Baseline** **Test Plan** **Table 4.** **Modified Method** **306 Test** **Results, Hexavalent** **Chromium Table** **5. Test** **Results for** **Outlet Hexavalent** **Chromium Emissions** **Table 6.** **Method 306** **Method 306A** **Comparison, Hexavalent** **Chromium Table** **6A. Method** **306 Modified** **Method 306A** **Comparison, Hex.** **Chromium Table** **7: Device** **Percent Efficiency** **and mg/Amp-hr** **for Hexavalent** **Chromium Table** **8: Above-Tank** **Total Chromium** **Air Concentrations** **Table 9:** **Inlet Hexavalent** **Chromium Concentrations** **Table 10:** **Freeboard Table** **11: OSHA** **Minimum Ventilation** **and Test** **Ventilation Rates** **Page 10** **10 11** **11 12** **12 13** **VI**

### I.**Introduction As** **part of** **new proactive** **approach to** **environmental compliance,** **the USEPA** **is working** 

### with**six industrial** **sectors in** **nationwide effort** **to encourage** **voluntary and** **cooperative efforts** **that involve** **industry, government,** **and public** **interest groups.** **Called the** **"Common Sense** **Initiative" (CSI), the** **program seeks** **out "Cheaper,** **Cleaner, Smarter"** **approaches to** **environmental management.** **CSI has** **encouraged and** **supported variety** **of projects,** **including technology** **demonstration projects** **within the** **metal finishing** **industry.**

### The**purpose of** **this CSI** **Chrome Demonstration** **Project is** **to help** **small to** **medium-sized hard** **chrome plating** **shops to** **cost-effectively comply** **with, or** **do better** **than, the** **USEPA's Maximum** **Achievable Control** **Technology (MACT)** **Standard for** **Chromium (regulatory** **reference 40CFR** **Parts and** **63: National** **Emission Standards** **for Chromium** **Emissions From** **Hard and** **Decorative Electroplating** **and Chromium** **Anodizing Tanks).** **The Project** **was able** **to benefit** **from related** **work underway** **by the** **Energy, Environment,** **and Manufacturing** **(EEM)**

### Technology**Access Project** **of the** **Technology Reinvestment** **Program (TRP),** **partnership of** **several federal** **agencies.**

### Funding**for the TRP** **Grant was** **provided by** **the Department** **of Commerce's** **National Institute** **of Standards** **and Technology** **(NIST) Manufacturing** **Extension Program** **(MEP); the** 

### United**States Environmental** **Protection Agency's** **(USEPA) Design** **for the** **Environment Group;** **the USEPA's** **Office of** **Research and** **Development; and** **the Department** **of Energy's** **(DoE) Office** **of Industrial** **Technologies.**

### The**Department of** **Commerce's National** **Institute of** **Standards Technology** **(NIST) Manufacturing** **Extension Partnership** **(MEP) has** **been working** **with the** **USEPA to** **bring environmental** **technical assistance** **services to** **small and** **medium-sized manufacturers.** 

### The**USEPA's Design** **for the** **Environment (DfE)** **Program uses** **the USEPA's** **expertise**

### and**leadership to** **exchange information** **and research** **on risk** **reduction and** **pollution prevention** **efforts. USEPA-DfE** **is one** **of the** **funders in** **the EEM-TRP,** **where the** **focus in** **on helping** **manufacturers make** **more informed** **choices regarding** **pollution prevention** **and waste** **reduction opportunities.** 

### The**USEPA's Office** **of Research** **Development (ORD)** **is the** **scientific and** **technical**

### arm**of the** **USEPA. ORD** **focuses on** **the advancement** **of basic,** **peer-reviewed scientific** **research and** **on the** **implementation of** **cost-effective, common** **sense technology.** 

### The**Department of** **Energy's (DoE)** **Office of** **Industrial Technologies** **(OIT) has** **sponsored program** **on assessments** **which identify** **energy-efficient measures** **that will result in** **pollution prevention** **and "green"** **plant/process design.** 

### The**Research and** **Technology Workgroup,** **Workgroup of** **the USEPA-CSI** **Metal**

### Finishing**Subcommittee, is** **the lead** **oversight group** **in the** **NIST-MEP/USEPA-CSI technology** **demonstration projects.** **The objective** **of these** **projects are** **to demonstrate** **low-cost 1/20/98** **improvements which** **emphasize pollution** **prevention in** **meeting the** **Chromium MACT** 

### Standard.**The USEPA** **will use** **information from** **these projects as** **case studies** **which provide** **more formal** **guidance on** **low-cost upgrades** **to meet** **the Chromium** **MACT Standard.** 

### CAMP,**Inc's Great Lakes** **Manufacturing Technology** **Center (GLMTC)** **acted as** **the Project** **Manager for** **two of** **the four** **CSI-Chromium Demonstration** **Projects. CAMP/GLMTC** **is not-for-profit** **technical service** **provider in** **Northeast Ohio,** **specializing in** **improving the** **performance and** **competitiveness of** **small to** **medium-sized manufacturers.** **A. Project** **Goal The** **major goal** **for this** **Project is** **to provide** **information to** **hard chromium** **metal platers,** 

### particularly**small and** **medium-sized job** **shops, that** **will assist** **them in** **cost-effectively meeting,** **or doing** **better than,** **the chromium** **air emissions** **limits. These** **limits must** **be met** **by all** **hard chromium** **electroplating shops** **under the** **USEPA's Office** **of Air Quality** **Planning and** 

### Standards-promulgated**1995 National** **Emission Standards** **for Chromium** **Emissions from Hard** **and Decorative** **Chromium Electroplating** **and Chromium** **Anodizing Tanks** **(Chromium Emissions** **MACT Standard).** **B. Project** **Objectives**

### Overall**Project Objectives** **are to:** **1. Demonstrate** **real-world baseline** **of typical** **electroplating source** **emission prevention** **and control** **techniques;**

### 2.**Determine if** **the EPA-mandated** **emission limits** **can be** **met under** **job-shop working** **conditions; 3.** **Determine low** **or lower-cost emission** **prevention and** **control techniques** **that emphasize** **pollution prevention;** **4. Demonstrate** **methods of reducing** **trivalent, hexavalent,** **and total** **chromium emissions** **into the** **environment. Specific** **Demonstration Project** **Objectives are** **to: 1.** **Identify and** **test potential** **retrofits of** **in-place technology** **to meet** **the Chromium** **MACT Standard** **(hereinafter, the** **Standard). 2.** **Identify and** **test combinations** **of bath** **additives and/or** **process control** **that can** **meet the** **Standard. C.** **Project Background** **Hard chrome** **platers must** **report their** **source outlet** **chromium emissions** **on either** **total chromium** **(i.e., trivalent** **plus hexavalent)** **or hexavalent** **chromium basis.** **The facility** **has the** **option of selecting** **which form** **of chromium** **to report.** **The Standard** **includes two** **designations for** **hard chromium** **electroplating facilities,** **based upon** **the maximum** **cumulative potential** **rectifier capacity** **and when** **the source(s) (e.g.,** **electroplating tank(s))** **were installed.** **facility is** **designated as** **"large" if** **the rectifier** **capacity for** **all hard** **chromium electroplating** **tanks equals** **or exceeds** **60 million** **ampere-hours per** **year. "small"** **facility is** **one at** **which the** **rectifier capacity** **is less** **than 60** **million ampere-hours** **per 1/20/98** 

### year.**In addition,** **an electroplating** **tank is** **"new" if** **it was** **installed or** **reconstructed after** 

### December**16, 1993.** **tank is** **"existing" if** **it was** **installed on** **to prior** **to that** **date. Table** **lists the** **chromium emissions** **limits as** **required by** **the Standard.** **Table 1:** **USEPA Chromium** **Emissions MACT** **Standard Limits** **Tank Status** **"Small" Facility** **''Large" Facility** **all "existing"** **tanks 0.03** **milligram/dry standard** **cubic meter** **0.015 milligram/dry** **standard cubic** **meter all** **"new" tanks** **0.015 milligram/dry** **standard cubic** **meter 0.015** **milligram/dry standard** **cubic meter** 

### The**Standard is** **based upon** **the use** **of prevention/control** **devices listed** **in Table** **2: Table** **2: Prevention/Control** **Devices Used** **to Determine** **the Standard** **Facility Classification** **Prevention/Control Device** **Used 'small"** **facility**

### packed-bed**scrubber with** **water addition** **to top** **of scrubber** **large" facility** 

### multi-stage**composite meshpad-style** **mist eliminator** 

### The**Chromium Demonstration** **Project investigated** **pollution prevention** **methods and** **control techniques** **that EPA** **"small" and** **"large" facilities** **can implement** **to meet** **the Chromium** 

### MACT**Standard. Both** **mechanical (that** **is, the** **physical separation** **of chromium** **mist from** **air) and** **chemical techniques** **(for example,** **chemical mist** **suppressants) were** **investigated. The** **Project was** **divided into** **four phases:** 

### Phase**Selecting representative** **prevention/control devices** **of hard** **chromium emission** **sources from** **variety of** **"small" and** **"large" facilities.** 

### Phase**Baseline testing** **of the** **prevention/control devices** **to provide** **data for:** **a) comparison** **with post-modification** **testing results** **and**

### b)**selection of** **devices which** **need to** **be modified** **to meet** **the Chromium** **MACT Standard.** 

### Phase**Selecting and** **installing low-cost** **emission reduction** **techniques to** **the sources** **that did** **not meet** **the Standard.** 

### Phase**Testing and** **evaluating the** **newly-installed techniques.** **An EPA-selected Peer** **Review Expert** **Panel reviewed** **and commented** **on Project** **activities. The** **results of** **the reviews** **were presented** **for approval** **to the** **Research and** 

### Technology**Work Group** **of the** **CSI Metal** **Finishing Subcommittee.** **Only after** **Work Group** **approval were** **the proposed** **activities undertaken.** **The Peer** **Review process** **covered such** **activities as:** 

### selection**of the** **prevention/control devices** **to test** **development of** **the sampling** **protocols selection** **of the** **stack testing** **firm to** **use for** **Phases and** 

### selection**of the** **analytical laboratories to** **use for** **Phases and** **selection of** **the prevention/control** **techniques to** **install. This** **report was** **peer-reviewed prior** **to release.** **1/20/98**

### n.**Executive Summary** **Plating Perceptions,** **Inc. (hereinafter** **PPI), metal** **finisher specializing** **in hard** **chrome**

### plating,**serves many** **industries, including** **the automotive,** **defense and** **aerospace industries.** **Chosen as** **Project participant,** **PPI received** **number of** **tests on** **their two** **hard chrome** **sources**

### (i.e.,**plating baths)** **in October,** **1995. (Note:** **total of** **five sources,** **three in** **Ohio and two** **in Michigan,** **were studied** **in this** **CSI-Demonstration Project.)** **This testing** **included pre-** **and post** 

### prevention/control**equipment emissions** **testing and** **above-tank emissions** **testing. Based** **upon**

### the**results of** **this testing,** **PPI was able** **to determine** **their compliance** **status relative** **to the** **Standard. In** **addition, with** **PPI input,** **site-specific Operation** **and Maintenance** **Manual was developed** **and implemented** **at PPI.** **The other** **beneficiary, the** **metal finishing** **industry, received** **valuable information** **concerning specific** **prevention/control equipment** **relative to** **compliance with** **the Standard.** 

### III.**Site Selection** **CAMP, Inc.** **and ITI** **began their** **search for** **potential Ohio** **and Michigan** **demonstration**

### sites**in April,** **1995. Potential** **Ohio hard-chrome** **plating sites** **were supplied** **by Industry** **Council representatives.** **local Ohio** **metal finisherjhen** **assisted Ohio** **site selection** **by contacting** **his colleagues** **to determine** **their interest** **in participating** **in this** **project. All** **interested Ohio** **sites (five** **in number)** **were contacted** **and visited** **in June,** **1995, by** **CAMP/GLMTC, ITI** **and two** **Industrial Council** **representatives/consultants. Each** **site was** **then evaluated** **as to their** **processes, prevention/control** **equipment, and** **potential Jor** **demonstration technologies.** **USEPA-selected Peer** **Review Panel** **chose the** **three best** **Ohio sites** **from the** **list of** 

### five.**Midwest Research** **Institute, the** **chosen Project** **testing and** **analytical laboratory, visited** **all three** **sites in** **August, 1995** **to evaluate** **testing feasibility** **and determine** **testing costs.** **In September** **1995, two** **sites (i.e.,** **PPI and** **another) were** **asked to** **participate after** 

### further**review of** **the facilities** **by the** **Peer Review** **Panel. The** **shops were** **selected as** **they had** 

### industry-representative**emission prevention/control** **devices covering** **variety of** **types. Not** **all emission** **sources at** **each facility** **were selected.** **In other** **words, only** **those sources** **connected to** **the control** **devices of** **interest were** **chosen. Specifically,** **PPI was** **selected as** **demonstration site** **for several** **reasons, among** **them: documentation** **of their** **current pollution** **prevention activities** **would benefit** **the metal** **plating industry** **their involvement** **in the** **testing which** **led to** **EPA Method** **306A supplied** **baseline to** **which current** **testing could** **be compared.** **they operated** **wet tri-meshpad** **mist eliminator** **and dry,** **dual-meshpad mist** **eliminator 1/20/98** 

### IV.**Site Description** **Starting in** **1988 with** **just four** **walls, the** **ceiling and** **concrete floor,** **Randy Taylor** **and his** **partner Randy** **Bauer built** **their successful** **business. Anticipating** **that environmental,** **health and** **safety regulations** **would be** **increasing, they** **installed the** **most advanced** **technology and** **features which** **were available.** **These technologies/features** **include: wet** **or dry,** **multi-stage meshpad** **mist eliminators** **recycling and** **reclaiming of** **all process** **solutions through** **spray rinsing** **and counter** **current rinsing** **secondary containment** **around all** **tanks**

### Located**in Twinsburg,** **Ohio, the** **facility occupies** **approximately 10,000** **square feet** **and employs** **about 12** **employees. They** **operate two** **hard chrome** **plating baths;** **one with** **dry, dual** 

### meshpad**mist eliminator;** **and the** **other with** **wet, tri-meshpad** **mist eliminator.** **Both control** **devices, manufactured** **by ChromeTech,** **Inc., of** **Windsor, Ohio,** **have the** **exhaust fan located** 

### after**the control** **units. Both** **have an** **exhaust hood** **which is** **a push-pull single-sided** **lateral-style hood** **that has** **single take-off** **and single** **three-inch tall** **slot down** **the long** **side of** **the tank.** **All parts** **are spray-rinsed,** **and all** **rinse tanks** **are piped** **to make** **use of** **the countercurrent-rinsing** 

### technique.**The entire** **plating process** **is close-looped,** **i.e., there** **are no** **liquid wastes_generated** **or discharged.** 

### PPI**is calculated** **"small" facility** **per the** **Standard definition** **(i.e., their** **maximum potential** **rectifier capacity** **is less** **than 60** **million ampere-hours** **per year).** **As such,** **the chromium** **emission limit** **for each** **of the** **two test** **sources is** **0.03 mg/dscm.** **A. Dry,** **Dual Meshpad** **Mist Eliminator** 

### One**PPI prevention/control** **device is** **117 dscm/min.** **air flow** **horizontal, dry,** **two meshpad** **mist eliminator.** **At baseline** **testing, this** **unit was** **approximately years** **old and** **the meshpad** **was approximately** **one year** **old. The** **device, duct** **work and** **fan are** **of plastic** **construction. The** **meshpads are** **washed in** **place daily** **and are** **removed and** **cleaned weekly.** 

### Project**participants did** **not expect** **this device** **to meet** **the Standard** **emission limit** **for an** **EPA**

### "large"**facility. This** **device is** **connected to** **single 20** **square foot** **1,735 gallon** **tank. single** **rectifier is** **used at** **the tank.** **Normal amperage** **used is** **in the** **3000 3500** **Amp range** **with maximum** **amperage of** **6000 Amp.** **The average** **plating batch** **time is** **four hours.** **The push-pull** **exhaust system** **used consists** **of low-profile** **hood opposite** **push air** 

### header.**The exhaust** **hood is** **"C"-shaped so** **that exhaust** **air is** **removed from** **the side** **opposite the** **air header** **and the** **ends of** **the tank.** **fan is** **located after** **the control** **device so** **that it** **is exposed** **to only** **"clean" air.** **Its vertical** **stack was** **used for** **outlet testing.** 

### According**to vendors,** **new meshpad** **mist eliminator** **costs approximately** **$35,000**

### $45,000.**Estimated annual** **operating costs** **are about** **$15,000. 1/20/98** **B. Wet,** **Tri-Meshpad Mist** **Eliminator The** **other PPI** **prevention/control device** **is an 88** **dscm/min. air** **flow, horizontal,** **wet,**

### three-meshpad**mist eliminator.** **At baseline** **testing, it** **was approximately** **years old** **and the** **meshpad was** **approximately one** **year old.** **Project participants** **expected this** **device to** **meet the** **MACT Standard** **limit for** **an EPA** **"small" facility.** **However, it** **was included** **in this** **study in** **order to** **determine if** **it could** **meet the** **limit for** **an EPA** **"large" facility.** **In addition,** **this device** 

### had**been tested** **four years** **previously during** **the EPA's** **development testing** **for the** **Method**

### 3O6A**procedure. Project** **participants wanted** **to determine** **if there** **was any** **degradation of** **the**

### device**over time** **(four years,** **in this case).** **This device** **is connected** **to single** **20 square** **foot 1,735** **gallon tank.** **single rectifier** **is used** **at the** **tank. Normal** **amperage used** **is in** **the 2500** **3000 Amp** **range with** **maximum amperage** **of 4000** **Amp. The** **average plating** **batch time** **is four** **hours.**

### The**push-pull exhaust** **system used** **consists of** **low-profile hood** **opposite push** **air**

### header.**The exhaust** **hood is** **"C"-shaped so** **that exhaust** **air is** **removed from** **the side** **opposite**

### the**tdr header** **and the** **ends of** **the tank.** **fan is** **located after** **the control** **device so** **that it** **is exposed** **to only** **"clean" air.** **The vertical** **stack was** **used for** **outlet testing.** **To assist** **in the** **chromium mist** **entrainment process,** **deionized water** **is recirculated** **and "sprayed** **onto the front** **of the** **second meshpad.** **The meshpads** **are continuously** **washed in** **front**

### of**the first** **two meshpads** **while in** **place. Deionized** **water is** **recirculated to** **the pads** **from tank** **under the** **device. The** **air flow** **is horizontal.** **The meshpads** **are also** **removed and** **cleaned weekly.** 

### According**to vendors, a** **new meshpad** **mist eliminator** **costs approximately** **$35,000 $45,000.** **Estimated annual** **operating costs** **are about** **$15,000.**

### V.**Anticipated Company/Industry** **Benefits PPI** **anticipated that** **participation in** **this Project** **would enable** **them to** **document their** 

### compliance**status. Project** **co-participants anticipated** **that this** **Project would** **benefit the** **Metal Finishing** **Industry, and** **in particular,** **the Hard** **Chrome Plating** **Industry, in** **the following** **ways: determination** **of the** **control efficiency** **of dry,** **dual-meshpad mist** **eliminator determination** **of the** **control efficiency** **of wet,** **tri-meshpad mist** **eliminator documentation** **of effective** **pollution prevention** **methods, such** **as spray** **rinsing, countercurrent** **rinsing, and** **close-looping of** **process liquids** **documentation of** **effective environmental** **management activities,** **such as** **secondary containment** **for all** **process tanks.** 

### VI.**Work Plan** **and Deliverables** **AH proposed** **Project activities** **were developed** **by CAMP** **and ITI,** **then presented** **to an** **EPA-selected Peer** **Review Expert** **Panel. The** **results of** **the Peer** **Panel review** **were presented** **for review** **and approval** **to the** **Research and** **Technology Work** **Group of** **the CSI** **Metal Finishing** **Subcommittee. Upon** **Work Group** **approval, the** **proposed activities** **were implemented.** **1/20/98 There** **were four** **phases to** **this project:** 

### 1.**Conduct baseline** **testing to determine** **current chromium** **emissions, i.e.,** **pre-control unit** **emissions, stack** **emissions, and** **above-tank emissions.** 

### 2.**Recommend and** **implement modifications** **and upgrades** **as necessary.** **If stack** **emission results** **indicate non-compliance** **with the** **Chromium MACT** **Standard,**

### identify,**select, and** **implement/install modifications/upgrades** **as necessary.** **If stack** **emission results** **indicate compliance,** **document situation** **and prepare** **Operations Maintenance** **Manual.**

### 3.**If upgraded,** **collect post-modification** **and upgrade** **data to** **determine their** **impact on** **chrome emissions.** 

### 4.**Draft Demonstration** **Project Technical** **Reports that** **report and** **assess the** **baseline data** **collection results,** **the modifications** **and upgrades** **recommended and** 

### implemented**(if applicable),** **and the** **post-modification and** **upgrade chrome** **emission results** **and analysis** **(if applicable).** **PPI's deliverables** **were to** **be as** **follows:**

### 1.**Baseline Testing** **results, including** **pre-control unit** **emissions, stack** **emissions, and** **above-tank emissions.** **2. Low-cost** **modification(s), as** **necessary.**

### 3.**Post-modification results,** **including pre-control** **unit emissions,** **stack emissions,** **and fugitive** **emissions (if** **applicable). 4.** **PPI Operations** **and Maintenance** **Manual. 5.** **Final PPI** **CSI-Demonstration Project** **Report.**

### VII.**Data Collection** **and Analysis** **Plan Beginning** **in July, 1995,** **the Baseline Test** **Plan (Table** **3) was** **developed by** **the Project** **participants, the** **CSI-Metal Finishing** **Research and** **Technology Workgroup,** **and later** **reviewed and** **approved by** **consultants and** **the EPA-selected** **Peer Review** **Panel. 1/20/98** **Table 3:** **Baseline Test** **Plan Inlet:** **EPA Method** **306 for** **Total Chromium** **and Hexavalent** **Chromium Air** **Flow Outlet:** **EPA Method** **306 for** **Total Chromium** **and Hexavalent** **Chromium EPA** **Method 306A** **for the** **wet, tri-meshpad** **control device** **Air Flow** **Device: Pressure** **Drop across** **Unit Bath:** **Above-Tank Chromium** **Air Emissions** **Amp-Hr Specific** **Gravity Temperature** **Freeboard Chromium** **and Hexavalent** **Chromium Sodium,** **Calcium, Zinc,** **and Magnesium** **All testing** **and sample** **analysis was** **done following** **accepted methodologies,** **such as** **EPA Method** **306 and** **306A. In** **order to** **obtain data** **quality assurance** **and control,** **formal Quality** **Assurance Project** **Plans (QAPs)** **were developed** **in input** **from the** **stack testing** **firms. The** **QAPs have** **data quality** **objectives for:** **duplicate analysis** **of both** **inlet and** **outlet stack** **samples and** **impinger blanks** **duplicate sample** **percentage difference** **instrument calibration** **percentage difference** **analysis of** **standard sample** **calibration and** **re-calibration of** **test and** **air sampling** **equipment spiked** **samples and** **blanks for** **hexavalent chromium** **samples serial** **dilution and/or** **spiking of** **samples and** **blanks for** **total chromium** **samples duplicate** **sampling for** **above-tank fugitive** **emissions sampling.** **For additional** **information on** **the QAPs** **and Quality** **Assurance Report,** **see Contact** **Information in** **Appendix F.** **In order** **to get** **an idea** **of the** **then-current emission** **levels prior** **to Method** **306 testing,** **Envisage Environmental,** **Inc., performed** **modified Method** **306 on** **October 6,1995.** **(Modified in** **that only** **one, one-hour** **test was** **performed instead** **of three,** **one-hour tests.)** **The results** **are summarized** **in Table** **4. 1/20/98** **Table 4:** **Modified Method** **30fi Test** **Results, Hexavalent** **Chromium in** **mc/dscni Control** **Device dual** **meshpad mist** **eliminator tri-meshpad** **mist eliminator Hexavalent** **Chromium, mg/dscm** **0.006 None** **Detected Chromium** **MACT Standard** **Limit for** **"Small" Facilities,** **mg/dscm 0.03** **0.03**

### The**"preliminary" results** **indicated that** **these two** **sources had** **good probability** **of being** **in compliance** **with the** **Chromium MACT** **Standard.**

### From**October 18-19,** **1995, Midwest** **Research Institute** **(MRI) conducted** **Method 306** 

### testing**at the** **inlet and** **outlet of** **the dual** **meshpad mist** **eliminator. From** **October 20** **21, 1995,** 

## Method**306 was** **conducted at** **the inlet** **of the** **tri-meshpad mist** **eliminator, while** **Method'306 and** **Method 306A** **testing was** **conducted at** **the outlet.** **(Note: The** **EPA developed** **Method 306** **and 306A** **for the determination** **of chromium** **emissions. Either** **method may** **be used).** **In addition,** **other testing** **and data** **collection, as** **specified in** **the Baseline** **Test Plan,** **were performed.** 

### Chromium**air concentrations** **above the** **electroplating baths** **were conducted** **using OSHA** 

### 125-G**procedures for** **total chromium.** **For the** **purposes of** **this project,** **the above-tank** **chromium air** **concentration is** **measure of** **the emissions** **above the** **top of** **the exhaust** **hood slots** **that are** 

### assumed**not to** **be captured** **by the** **exhaust hood.** **The concentration** **values were** **not intended** **to be** **measure of** **worker exposure** **levels.**

### The**concentrations were** **measured approximately** **four inches** **above the** **top of** **the electroplating** **tank exhaust** **hood or** **tank lip** **at three** **equidistant points** **(1/4, 1/2** **and 3/4** **of the** **length of** **the tank's** **long axis)** **along line** **drawn down** **the middle** **of the** **tank paralleling** **the long** **axis. membrane** **filter probe** **connected to** **personal sampling** **pump was** **placed in** **the middle** **of each** **third of** **the centerline** **of the** **tanks. The** **probes were** **placed approximately** **one**

### foot**above the** **plating tank's** **surface. The** **parts in** **the tanks were** **typically placed** **along the** **centerline of** **the tanks. As** **stated previously,** **both the** **dual and** **the tri-meshpad** **mist eliminator** **devices are** **ducted to** **push-pull single-sided** **lateral exhaust** **hoods.**

### Sampling**was conducted** **for two-hour** **time period** **using personal** **sampling pumps** 

### connected**to 37-millimeter** **diameter and** **0.8-micrometer-sized mixed** **cellulose-ester filter** **cassettes. The** **filter cassettes** **were suspended** **so that** **the inlet** **was approximately** **four inches** **above the** **exhaust hood** **slot.**

### Electroplating**bath density** **measurements were done using** **ASTM Method** **1298. SW** 

### 846**Method 6010,** **ICP was used** **for multi-metals** **analysis of** **the baths.** **The industry** **standard ritration** **method was** **used for** **the determination** **of hexavalent** **chromium concentration** **in the** **electroplating bath** **samples. Chain** **of custody forms were** **completed for** **all samples** **submitted to** **laboratories for** **analysis. 1/20/98** 

### VIII.**Results and** **Discussion of** **Results Baseline** **testing results were** **received from** **MRI in** **January, 1996.** **Appendix contains** **the Method** **306 test** **results, while** **Appendix contains** **the Method** **306A results.** **Additional baseline** **test results** **can be** **found in** **Appendix C.** **The following** **text summarizes** **the major** **findings. A.** **Outlet Hexavalent** **Chromium Emissions** **Table lists** **the outlet** **hexavalent chromium** **emissions results** **for both** **devices tested.** **These results** **may be** **used to** **determine compliance** **with the** **Standard. (Note:** **The EPA** **allows for** **the reporting** **of either** **hexavalent or** **total chromium.)** **Table 5:** **Test Results** **for Outlet** **PPI Control** **Device Dry,** **dual-meshpad mist** **eliminator Wet,** **tri-meshpad mist** **eliminator iexavalent** **Chromium Emissions** **10/95 Test** **Results for** **Outlet Hexavalent:** **Chromium (mg/dscm)** **■0.0062 0.0030** **Chromium MACT** **Standard Limit** **for -■'** **"small" facility** **source (mg/dscm)** **0.03 0.03** **EPA AP-42** **expected outlet** **concentration range** **(mg/dscm) 0.03** **0.04 0.006-0.01** **Test results** **indicate that** **hexavalent chromium** **emissions from** **both the** **dry, dual** **meshpad mist** **eliminator and** **the wet,** **tri-meshpad mist** **eliminator are** **lower than** **the Standard's** 

### limit.**In fact,** **the levels** **are significantly** **lower than** **both the** **MACT.Standard limit** **and the** **EPA AP-42** **expected outlet** **concentration range** **for the** **control devices.** **In January** **of 1996,** **the PPI** **Performance Testing** **Report was** **sent to** **the local** **Ohio EPA** **air emissions** **division. In** **addition, PPI** **assisted in** **the development** **and implementation** **of its** **Operation and** **Maintenance Plan.** **B. Comparison** **of Method** **306 and** **Method 306A** **Table is** **comparison of** **the October,** **1995 PPI** **tri-meshpad device** **Method 306,** **Method 306A** **and 1990 Early** **Method 306A** **test results.** **Table 6:** **Method 306** **Method 306A** **Comparison, Hexavalent** **Chromium Results** **PPI Control** **Device EPA** **Method 306** **(October, 1995)** **mg/dscm EPA** **Method 306A** **(October, 1995)** **mg/dscm Early** **Method 306A** **(September, 1990)** **mg/dscm tri-meshpad** **mist eliminator** **0.005 0.007** **0.013 10** **1/20/98**

### Test**results at** **this site** **and one in** **Michigan indicate** **that both** **EPA Method** **306 and** **EPA Method** **306A, when** **done correctly,** **can produce** **results that** **are similar** **in chromium** **concentration.**

### It**was noticed** **that the** **Method 306A** **and the** **early Method** **3O6A test** **runs had** **more**

### variation**than the** **Method 306** **test runs.** **Method 306A** **and early** **Method 306A** **hexavalent chromium** **results have** **standard deviation** **11 to** **12 times** **the standard** **deviation of** **Method 306** **hexavalent chromium** **results. Although** **the reason** **for this** **is still** **unclear, it** **can be** **noted that** **if**

### the**highest value** **from each** **Method 306A** **and early** **Method 306A** **is excluded,** **the results** **are closer** **(see Table** **6A). This would** **indicate that** **the Method** **306 and** **Method 306A** **results are** **comparable and** **that the** **early Method** **306A result** **is approximately** **two times** **more than** **the**

### Method**306 or** **Method 306A** **values. One** **possible explanation** **for this** **may be** **difference in** **tank loading** **between the** **Method 306/Method** **306A testing** **in October,** **1995 and** **the early** **Method 306A** **testing in** **September, 1990.** **Table A:** **Method 306** **Modified Method** **306A Comparison,** **Hexavalent Chromium** **Results PPI** **Control Device** **EPA Method** **306 mg/dscm** **EPA Method** **306A mg/dscm** **Early Method** **306A mg/dscm** **tri-meshpad mist** **eliminator 0.005** **0.005 0.011** **C. Prevention/Control** **Device Efficiency** 

### Table 7**contains the** **calculated "removal** **efficiency" and** **"milligrams of** **hexavalent**

### chromium/ampere-hour**values" for** **the dual** **and tri-meshpad** **devices. Percent** **removal efficiency** **is calculated** **using the** **following equation:** 

### removal**efficiency (inlet** **outlet chromium** **concentration)/inlet chromium** **concentration) 100** **Table 7;** **Device Percent** **Efficiency and** **mg/Amp-hr for** **Hexavalent Chromium** **Control Device** **Percent Efficiency** **mg/Amp-hr dual-meshpad** **mist eliminator** **99.8 0.015** **tri-meshpad mist** **eliminator 99.96** **0.010**

### In**comparing removal** **efficiency test** **results from** **the five** **sources studied** **in the** **CSI project,** **it was** **observed that** **removal efficiency** **only grossly** **correlated with** **the outlet** **concentration of** **device. In** **fact, based** **on testing** **conducted to** **support the** **Standard, it** **was**

### found**that removal** **efficiency is** **correlated to** **the log** **of inlet** **chromium concentration** **and is** **not related** **to the** **outlet chromium** **concentration. The** **results of** **the five** **sources confirm** **this finding.** 

### D.**Above-Tank Total** **Chromium Air** **Concentrations The** **results of** **this study** **can be** **found in** **Table 8.** **11 1/20/98** **Table 8:** **Above-Tank Chromium** **Air Concentrations,** **in Source** **Tank with** **dual-meshpad mist** **eliminator Tank** **with tri-meshpad** **mist eliminator** **Run No.** **1.3308 9.9924** **g/cubic meter** **Run No.** **0.8914 3.3605** **Run No.** **0.8142 2.6966** **Average 1.0121** **5.3498 Compared** **to the** **other tested** **sources in** **both Ohio** **and Michigan,** **the dual-meshpad** **device results** **were roughly** **in the** **same range.** **The high** **above-tank concentrations** **for the** **tri meshpad** **unit may** **have been** **due to** **the placement** **of the** **filter cassette** **inlet, which** **was placed** **such that** **it may** **have been below** **the air** **stream coming** **from the** **push header.** **This would** **mean**

### that**the inlet** **was not** **above the** **top of** **the slot** **and was** **instead below** **it. The** **expected result** **would be** **higher above-tank** **total chromium** **air concentration.** **E. Prevention/Control** **Device Inlet** **Hexavalent Chromium** **Concentrations The"prevention/control** **devices' inlet** **hexavalent chromium** **air concentration** **represents air** **concentration without** **the use** **of prevention/control** **techniques. Test** **results can** **be found** **in Table** **9. Table** **9: "inlet** **Hexavalent Chromium** **Concentrations, mg/dscm** **Source Inlet** **Hexavalent Chromium,** **mg/dscm dual** **meshpad mist** **eliminator 4.57** **tri-meshpad mist** **eliminator 11.53** **The tri-meshpad** **unit's inlet** **concentration was** **much higher** **than the** **dual meshpad** **unit's, even** **though the** **part-loading and** **the amp-load** **of both** **units was** **similar during** **testing. F.** **Freeboard Table** **10 lists** **the freeboard** **measurements obtained** **during the** **October, 1995** **testing at** **PPI. Freeboard** **is measurement** **of the** **distance between** **the plating** **bath surface** **level and** **the bottom** **of the** **exhaust hood** **slot. Table** **10: Freeboard** **_____ PPI** **Control Device** **Freeboard, cm.** **(in.) Dual-meshpad** **mist eliminator** **20.3 (8.0)** **Tri-meshpad mist** **eliminator 15.2** **(6.0) Recent** **industry studies** **have sought** **to offer** **some insight** **into the** **effect of** **freeboard on** **fugitive emissions.** **In one** **study, researchers** **concluded that** **freeboard of** **15 cm** **(about inches)** **will result** **in the** **lowest emissions,** **and freeboards** **of either** **less or** **more than** **15 cm** **would result** **in greater** **emissions. In** **another study,** **it was** **noted that** **increasing the** **freeboard from** **15.2 cm** **(6 inches)** **to 30.5** **cm (12** **inches) did** **not have** **significant effect** **on fugitive** **emissions. 12** **1/20/98**

### The**other four** **sources being** **studied had** **freeboard values** **in the** **5- to** **12-inch range.** **When freeboard** **was varied** **for one** **of the** **sources, there** **was not** **significant effect** **on emission** **levels. Accordingly,** **no correlation** **can be** **drawn from** **this study.** **G. Ventilation** **Rates**

### The**OSHA minimum** **and test** **ventilation rates** **were calculated** **and appear** **in Table** **11. The** **method for** **calculating the** **minimum ventilation** **rate is** **found in** **29CFR 1910.94.** **Source Tank** **with dual** **meshpad mist** **eliminator Tank** **with tri-meshpad** **mist eliminator** **Tank Area** **sq. ft** **20 20** **OSHA Minimum** **cfm 1.500** **1,500 Test** **cfm 4,319** **4,950**

### For**both PPI** **sources, the** **OSHA minimum** **ventilation rate** **requirement was** **more than** **satisfied. Due** **to their** **operational features,** **push-pull hoods,** **such as** **those at** **PPI, capture** **more**

### fugitive**emissions and** **are therefore** **more effective** **in reducing** **worker exposures.** **However, the** **additional emissions** **captured will** **have to** **be controlled** **by the** **prevention/control device** **in order** **for the** **unit to** **meet the** **Standard, as** **they are** **in PPI's** **case.**

### IX.**PPPs Pollution** **Prevention Features** **The following** **PPI process** **features constitute** **industry standard** **pollution prevention** **techniques: Countercurrent** **Rinsing**

### Countercurrent**rinsing employs** **sequential rinse** **tanks in** **which the** **rinsewater flows** **in**

### the**opposite direction** **of the** **workpiece flow.** **Fresh water** **is only** **added to** **the final** **rinse tank** **and is** **transported, usually** **by gravity** **overflow, to** **the previous** **rinse tank.** **Wastewater exits** **the system** **from the** **first rinse** **tank. In** **some cases** **(e.g., PPI's),** **this wastewater** **can be** **used as** **plating bath** **make-up. Many** **shops have** **used this** **technique to** **minimize water** **consumption. In** **fact, reductions** **of up** **to 95%** **have been** **reported. The** **following drawing** **depicts three-stage** **countercurrent rinse** **system. Workpiece** **Movement**

# r~**Workpiece Process** **Tank Rinse** **Tank Rinse** **Tank Rinse** **Tank Effluent** **to Recovery** **or Treatment** **Rinsewater Influent** **13 1/20/98** **Spray Rinsing** **PPI has** **installed rinse** **spray nozzles** **over an** **empty tank** **to replace** **an entire** **rinse tank** **filled with** **water. The** **overspray is** **then be** **returned to** **the process** **bath, resulting** **in reduced** **plating bath** **drag-out. Some** **metal finishing** **shops have** **reported using** **10 25%** **less water** **with spray** **rinsing compared** **to dip** **rinsing. Close-Looped** **Rinsing System** **PPI's facility** **is serviced** **by septic** **tank system,** **which helped** **to influence** **their decision** **to close-loop** **their liquid** **material flows.** **All liquids** **are managed** **in such** **way that** **they are** **reused in** **the process** **and not** **sent to** **the septic** **tank. For** **example, all** **meshpad washwaters,** **and all** **rinsewaters are** **reused and** **eventually returned** **to the** **process baths.** **Secondary Containment** **During the** **construction of** **their plating** **facility, PPI** **excavated large** **section of** **the concrete** **floor in** **order to** **build their** **secondary containment** **system. They** **then installed** **lining encased** **in concrete** **walls, and** **coated the** **space with** **chemical-resistance sealer.** **Finally, the** **process and** **rinse tanks** **were lowered** **in the** **containment space.** **PPI's system** **will provide** **secondary containment** **for any** **and all** **spills and** **leaks, including** **catastrophic situation** **where all** **of the** **tanks would** **be ruptured** **or leaking.** **X. Conclusions** **Dry, dual** **meshpad, and** **wet, tri-meshpad** **mist eliminator** **prevention/control devices** **are capable** **of meeting** **the Chromium** **MACT Standard** **for both** **EPA "small"** **and "large"** **facilities. In** **fact, they** **can effectively** **control chromium** **emissions and** **discharges due** **to the** **following features:** **1. The** **meshpad mist** **eliminator design** **and operation** **does not** **solve air** **emission problems** **at the** **expense of** **water discharge** **problems. 2.** **Only small** **amount (typically** **7-10 gallons/day)** **of chromium-bearing** **fluid is** **generated during** **operation and** **cleaning processes.** **This fluid** **can be** **returned to** **the plating** **tank in** **almost all** **instances. 3.** **The equilibrium** **concentration of** **chromium in** **the re-circulated** **fluid remains** **low enough** **that it** **can be** **used for** **extended periods,** **rather than** **building up** **continuously with** **use. 4.** **The chromium** **concentration in** **the re-circulated** **fluid can** **be used** **to gauge** **the effectiveness** **of the** **first (primary)** **meshpad. 5.** **No waste** **pretreatment systems** **are needed.** **6. Meshpads** **are able** **to be** **removed for** **cleaning, inspection,** **repair and** **replacement. 7.** **The meshpad** **configuration can** **be modified** **to influence** **emission control.** 

### XI.**Post-Project Summary** **Although not** **surprised by** **the test** **results, PPI** **was pleased** **with their** **compliance status** **and the** **assistance that** **they had** **received as** **result of** **this Project.** **In addition,** **as result** **of the** **14 1/20/98** 

### distribuUon**of Project** **results to** **the plating** **industry, hard** **chrome platers** **now have** **proven option** **for complying** **with the** **Chromium MACT** **Standard.**

### XII.**Responsibilities and** **Funding Project** **responsibilities were** **assigned as** **follows: ActivitY/Iten** **Baseline Testing** **Operations and** **Maintenance Manual** **Project Report** **Responsible Partv(ies)** **CAMP/GLMTC PPI,** **CAMP/GLMTC CAMP/GLMTC** 

### Project**funding was** **contributed as follows:** **Project Participant** **CAMP/GLMTC USEPA-** **Design for the** **Environment Plating** **Perceptions, Inc.** **TOTAL EEM/TRP-CSI** **Funds $6,900** **$4,800 project** **management $2,100** **report preparation** **$6,900 In-Kind** **Contributions $50,000** **baseline testing** **-10/95 $3,250** **65 hours** **$50/hour for** **project activities** **$53,250 15** **1/20/98 REFERENCES** 

### 1.**Subpart National** **Emissions Standards** **for Chromium** **Emissions from** **Hard and** 

### Decorative**Chromium Electroplating** **and Chromium** **Anodizing Tanks,** **40CFR Parts** **and 63.** **2. Hard** **Chrome Pollution** **Prevention Demonstration** **Project Interim** **Report, USEPA** 

### Common**Sense Initiative** **Metal Finishing** **Subcommittee/National Institute** **of Standards** **and**

### Technology**Manufacturing Extension** **Partnership, November** **27,1996 3.** **Hexavalent Chrome** **Emission Testing** **Program: Assisting** **Metal Finishers** **in Meeting** **the 1995** **Chrome MACT** **Standard, James** **E. Hensley,** **et. al.,** **Industrial Technology** **Institute, 1996.** **4. ChromeTech,** **Inc., P.O.** **Box 295,** **Windsor, Ohio,** **44099.**

### 5.**Chromium Emissions** **from Chromium** **Electroplating and** **Chromic Acid** **Anodizing Operations-Background** **Information for** **Proposed Standards,** **Volume II,** **USEPA, Research** **Triangle Park,** **NC, EPA** **453/R-93-030b, July,** **1993. 16** **1/20/98**

### Appendix**A: SUMMARY** **OF BASELINE** **METHOD 306** **CHROME DEMO** **TESTS Baseline** **Conditions Device** **dual mesh** **pad Run** **No. Test** **Parameters Amp** **hr/Hr 2690** **2598 3646** **Outlet Air** **Flow, dscm/min** **123 124** **120 Run** **Time (miu)** **120 120** **120 Test** **Chromium Concentration** **Inlet Hex,** **ma/M3 1.2932** **5.8476 6.5651** **Inlet Total,** **1.190 6.020** **6.810 Outlet** **Hex, me/M3** **0.0049 0.0040** **0.0097 Outlet** **Total, 0.0162** **0.0150 0.0192** **Above Tank,** **mc/MJ 1.3308** **0.8914 0.8142** **tri-meshpad 2176** **2354 3005** **135 137** **139 120** **120 120** **8.1134 14.8243** **11.6571 9.020** **13.700 11.00** **0.0028 0.0030** **0.0032 0.0169** **0.0190 0.0087** **9.9924 3.3605** **2.6966 17** **1/20/98**

### Appendix**B: SUMMARY** **OF BASELINE** **METHOD 306A** **CHROME DEMO** **TESTS Baseline** **Conditions Device** **tri-mesh pad** **Run No.** **Test Parameters** **Amp hr/Hr** **2176 2354** **3005 Outlet** **Air Flow,** **dscm 135** **137 139** **Run Time** **(min) 120** **120 120** **Test Chromium** **Concentration Inlet** **Hex, mg/M3** **8.1134 14.8243** **11.6571 Inlet** **Total, mg/M3** **9.020 13.700** **11.000 Outlet** **Hex, mg/M3** **0.0025 0.0041** **0.0076 Outlet** **Total, mg/M3** **0.0172 0.0342** **0.0245 Above** **Tank, ma/M3** **9.9924 3.3605** **2.6966 18** **1/20/98 Appendix** **C: ADDITIONAL** **BASELINE TEST** **RESULTS Parameter** **Results Source** **with Dual** **Meshpad Unit** **Source with** **Tri Meshpad** **Unit Bath** **Concentrations: Zinc** **(Hg/ml) Calcium** **(p.g/ml) Magnesium** **(u,g/ml) Sodium** **(ixg/ml) Chromium** **(jig/ml)**

### Chromic**Acid (oz/gal)'** **329.8 460.0** **574.4 4,283** **111,570 27.33** **509.7 928.8** **1100 8,238** **148,850 40.48** **Surface Tension** **(dynes/cm): Apparent** 

### Corrected**Density (g/ml)3** 

### Pressure**Drop Across Device** **66.2@83.9 62.8** **1.1621 3.5** **inches water** **71.5@85.OF 67.8** **1.2381 5.7** **inches water** 

### Average**of two** **titrations. Using** **surface tension** **correction factor** **of 0.94** **and temperature** **correction factor** **of 0.14****dynes/cm*C);****corrected to** **25 C.** 

### Readings**taken at** **room temperature** **of 23.5** **C, not** **corrected to** **15 C.** 

### Average**of three** **runs. 19** **1/20/98**

### Appendix**D: GLOSSARY** **OF TERMS** **Add-on air** **pollution control** **device: Equipment** **installed in** **process for** **the purposes** **of collecting** **and containing** **air emissions.** **Air emission** **prevention/control technique:** **Any method,** **such as** **an add-on air** **pollution control** **device or** **chemical mist** **(fume) suppressant,** **which is** **used to** **reduce emissions.** **Chemical mist** **suppressant: Any** **chemical agent** **that reduces** **or suppresses** **fumes or** **mists at** **the surface** **of an electroplating** **or anodizing** **bath. Another** **term of** **chemical mist** **suppressant is** **fume suppressant.** **Chromic acid:** **The common** **name for** **chromium anhydride** **(CrO3>. Chromium** **anodizing: The** **electrolytic process** **by which** **an oxide** **layer is** **produced on** **the surface** **of base** **metaffor "functional** **purposes (e.g.,** **corrosion-resistance) using** **chromic acid** **solution. Composite** **meshpad system:** **An add-on** **air pollution,** **control device** **typically consisting** **of several** **meshpad stages.** **The purpose** **of the** **first stage** **is to** **remove large** **particles. Smaller** **particles are** **removed in** **the second** **stage, which** **consists of** **composite meshpad.** **final stage** **may remove** **any re-entrained** **particles not** **collected by** **the composite** **meshpad.**

### Decorative**chromium electroplating:** **The process** **by which** **thin layer** **of chromium** **(typically 0.003** **to 2.5** **microns) is** **electrodeposited on** **base metal,** **plastic, or undercoating** **to provide** **bright surface** **with wear** **and tarnish** **resistance. This** **chromium process** **can involve** **either the** **trivalent or** **hexavalent form.** **Typical current density** **applied to this** **process ranges** **from 50 to** **220 amperes** **per square** **foot for** **total plating** **times ranging** **from 0.5** **to minutes.** **Electroplating or** **anodizing bath:** **The electrolytic** **solution used** **as the** **conducting medium** **in which** **current is** **accompanied by** **movement of** **metal ions** **for the** **purposes of** **electroplating metal** **out of** **the solution** **onto workpiece** **or for** **oxidizing the** **base metal.** **Emission limitation:** **The concentration** **of a chemical** **permitted to** **be emitted.** **Existing tank:** **Under the** **Chromium MACT** **Standard, tank** **having startup** **date prior** **to December** **16, 1993.** **Fiber-bed mist** **eliminator. An** **add-on air** **pollution control** **device that** **removes contaminants** **from gas** **stream through** **the mechanisms** **of inertial** **impaction and** **Brownian diffusion.** **Hard chromium** **electroplating: process** **by which** **thick layer of** **chromium (typically** **1.3 to** **760 microns)** **is electro-deposited** **on base** **material to** **provide surface** **with functional** **properties such** **as wear-resistance,** **low coefficient** **of friction,** **hardness, and** **corrosion resistance.** **The hard** **chromium electroplating** **process is** **performed using** **current densities** **20 1/20/98** **typically ranging** **from 150** **to 600** **ampere per** **square foot** **for total** **plating times** **ranging from 20** **minutes to** **36 hours,** **depending upon** **the desired** **plate thickness.** **Hazardous air** **pollutant: Title** **III of** **the Clean** **Air Act** **Amendments identifies** **189 substances** **are hazardous** **air pollutants** **(HAPs). Under** **Title III,** **sources that** **emit one** **or more** **HAPs may** **be required** **to comply** **with Maximum** **Achievable Control** **Technology (MACT)** **Standards. These** **Standards will** **be based** **upon the** **best demonstrated** **control technology** **or practices** **used by** **the regulated** **industry. Large,** **hard chromium** **electroplating facility:** **facility that** **performs hard** **chromium electroplating** **and has** **maximum cumulative** **potential rectifier** **capacity greater** **than or** **equal to** **60 million** **ampere-hours per** **year. Maximum** **Achievable Control** **Technology (MACT):** **Emission limitations** **based on** **the best** **demonstrated control** **technology or** **practices applied** **to major** **sources emitting** **one or** **more of** **the federally-listed** **hazardous air** **pollutants. National** **Ambient Air** **Quality Standards** **(NAAQS): Air** **quality standards** **established by** **the EPA** **that apply** **to outside** **air throughout** **the country.** **National Emission** **Standards for Hazardous** **Air Pollutants** **(NESHAPs): Emission** **standards set** **by the** **EPA for** **air contaminants** **not covered** **by NAAQS** **that may** **cause an** **increase in** **deaths, or** **serious irreversible** **or incapacitating** **illnesses. New** **tank: Under** **the Chromium** **MACT Standard,** **tank with** **startup date** **after December** **16, 1993.** **Packed-bed scrubber.** **An add-on** **air pollution** **control device** **consisting of** **single or** **double packed-bed** **that contains** **packing media** **on which** **chromic acid** **droplets impinge.** **The packed** **bed system** **is followed** **by mist** **eliminator which** **removes any** **water entrained** **from the** **packed bed** **section. When** **using this** **type of** **control method,** **fresh water** **must be** **added from** **the top in** **order to** **meet the** **Chromium MACT** **Standard. Reconstructed** **tank: Under** **the Chromium** **MACT Standard,** **tank in** **which the** **replacement of** **tank components** **was to** **the extent** **that the fixed** **capital cost** **of the** **new components** **exceeded 50%** **of the** **fixed capital** **cost that** **would be** **required to** **construct comparable** **new tank,** **and it** **is technologically** **and economically-feasible** **for the tank** **to meet** **the requirements of** **the Standard.** **Rectifier. device** **that converts** **alternating current** **into direct** **current by** **permitting considerable** **flow of** **current in** **one direction.** **Small hard** **chrome plating** **facility: facility** **that performs** **hard chrome** **electroplating and** **has maximum** **cumulative potential** **rectifier capacity** **less than** **60 million** **ampere hours/year.** **21 1/20/98** **Stationary source:** **Any building,** **structure, facility,** **or installation** **that emits** **or may** **emit any** **air pollutant.** **22 1/20/98** 

### Appendix**E: ABBREVIATIONS** **USED IN** **THIS DOCUMENT** **AESF**

### A/ft2**Amp Amp-hr** **Amp-hr/Hr AP-42** **ASTM CAAA** **cfm CFR** **cm CMP** **CSI DfE** **DoE dscf** **dscm EPA** **ft**

### ft2

### ft3**GLMTC HAP** **Project hr** **ICP in** 

### m2orM2**m3orM3 MACT** **MEP MFSA** **mg min** **MRI NAMF** **NESHAP NIST** **NRMRL OAQS** **OU ORD** **The American** **Electroplaters and** **Surface Finishers** **Society, Inc.** **ampere per** **square foot** **ampere ampere-hour** **ampere-hour/hour USEPA's** **publication of emission** **factors for** **various industries** **The American** **Society of** **Testing and** **Materials Clean** **Air Act** **Amendments cubic** **feet per** **minute Code** **of Federal** **Regulations centimeters** **composite meshpad** **Common Sense** **Initiative USEPA's** **Design for** **the Environment** **Department of** **Energy dry** **standard cubic** **foot dry** **standard cubic** **meter Environmental** **Protection Agency** **foot square** **foot cubic** **foot Great** **Lakes Manufacturing** **Technology Center** **hazardous air** **pollutant The** **Hard Chrome** **Pollution Prevention** **Demonstration Project** **hour Inductively** **Coupled Plasma** **Emission Spectrometry** **Industrial Technology** **Institute meter** **square meter** **cubic meter** **Maximum Achievable** **Control Technology** **Manufacturing Extension** **Partnership The** **Metal Finishing** **Suppliers Association** **milligram minute** **Midwest Research** **Institute The** **National Association** **of Metal Finishers** **National Emission** **Standards for** **Hazardous Air** **Pollutants The** **National Institute** **of Standards** **and Technology** **The USEPA's** **National Risk** **Management Research** **Laboratory The** **USEPA's Office** **of Air** **Quality Planning** **and Standards** **The DoE's** **Office of** **Industrial Technologies** **The USEPA's** **Office of** **Research and** **Development 23** **1/20/98 OSHA** **Occupational Health** **and Safety** **Administration P2** **Pollution Prevention** **PBS Packed** **Bed Scrubber** **QAPs Quality** **Assurance Project** **Plans SW-846** **Standards Methods** **for Environmental** **Testing USDoE** **United States** **Department of** **Energy USEPA** **United States** **Environmental Protection** **Agency 24** **1/20/98 Appendix** **F: CONTACT** **INFORMATION Organization** **Industrial Technology** **Institute (ITI)** **CAMP, Inc.** **Title Manager,** **Environment/Energy Department** **Manager, Manufacturing** **Environmental Management** **Services Address** **2901 Hubbard** **Rd. P.O.** **Box 1485** **Ann Arbor,** **MI 48105-1485** **4600 Prospect** **Ave. Cleveland,** **OH 44103** **Phone/Fax Numbers** **313-769-4087 (p)** **313-769-4064(f) 216-432-5300** **(p) 216-361-2900** **(f) 25** **1/20/98**