p. 1



# OAR Box 1313

Prepped by LaTeia Shed



### Document

Number: 

# 60 ) ll-B-3 4

Docket Number: 

# A-88-0 2

Printed 6/12/20089:03:29AM

Sheet 60of 99P. 2 

# V I Rl ® MIOWES T RESEARC H INSTITUT E Suit e 35 C -•0 1 Harriso n OaK

s Bouievar r Carv

. N. C 275' ' 

## A-88-0 2

Date : Subject : Apri l 18 , 198 8

Respons e t o Comment s o n Draf t Capita l Cos t Estimate s fo r th e Trivalen t Chromium

Proces s Receive dfro m Mr . Bil l Vatavuk , Standard s Developmen t Branc h(SDB ) ,~~—,r " Chromiu m Electroplatin g NESHA P •-""'• " '< • EP A Contrac t 68-02-3817 ; ES D Projec t 85/02 a MR I Projec t 7717- K

From : 

# 5^ 

# m V\

To : Robi nBarke r

Andy Smit h' .... . ESD/ISB/SS S (MD-13 ) U . S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y Researc hTriangl e Park , N.C . 2771 1

I . Introductio n Midwes t Researc hInstitut e response s t o Mr . Bil l Vatavuk' s comment s o nth e draf t Trivalen t Chromium Proces s Capita l Cos t Memorandum ar e summarize dbelow . Pleas e revie w an d forwar da copy

o f thi s memorandum

t o Mr . Vatavu k an

d Mr . Do n Gillett e o f SDB . II . Summar y

o f Comment s an d Response s
Comment : I f th e trivalen t chromiu m proces s i s "technicall y superior " t o th e hexavalen t process , shoul dw e no t attribut e par t o f th e cos t differenc e betwee nthes e tw o technique s t o "proces s improvement" ? (I t doe s no t see

m reasonabl e t o attribut e th e entir e incrementa l cos t t o ai r pollutio ncontrol. ) Response : Th e cos t saving s generate db y th e trivalen t chromiu m proces s improvement s wil l b e reflecte di n th e annualize dcos t estimate s fo r th e process . Ther e i s n o metho dfo r proportionin g th e capita l cos t o f th e trivalen t proces s int o tw o components , on e fo r ai r pollutio ncontro l an dth e othe r fo r proces s improvement ; however , a not e wil l b e adde dt o th e tex t t o indicat e tha t th e tota l capita l cos t shoul dno t b e attribute d solel y t o ai r pollutio ncontrol . Comment : Ho

w wel l d o th e capita l cost s fo r th e othe r trivalen t processe s compar e t o th e "Tri-Chrome ®LC Plus " proces s costs ? (T o thi s end , i t migh t b

e helpfu l t o add a tabl e listing th e capita l cost s fo r al l trivalen t processe s o n som e commo nbasis , say , $/ga l o f tan k capacity. ) Response : The revise dcapita l cos t memo wil l presen t th e capita l cos t o f conversio nfo r eac hmode l plan t base do n a compilatio no f vendo r estimates .

/P. 3

Comment : Wher e inTabl e 5 ar e th e hexavalen t chromiu m proces s costs ? (Onl y

cost s fo r th e trivalen t proces s appea r inTabl e 5. ) Response : Tabl e 5 show s th e incrementa l cos t o f th e trivalen t proces s ove r th e hexavalen t proces s an dth e cos t o f equipmen t tha t woul d be associate donl y

wit hth e us e o f th e trivalen t process . Equipmen t requirement s tha t wer e th e sam e fo r bot hprocesse s wer e no t presented becaus e th e cost s ne t eac hothe r out . Comment : I f th e trivalen t platin g facilitie s being studie duse d differen t chromiu

m solutions. , ho

w ca nthei r cost s be compare dt o th e cost s presented1 nTable s 3 , 4 , an d5 ? Explain , please . Response : Th e equipmen t cos t i s fo r th e mos t par t independen t o f th e typ e o f platin g solutio nuse di nth e process . Th e cos t fo r th e platin g solutio nwil l vary betwee nvendors . However , the chemica l cos t differentia l betwee nthe vendor s wil l b e considere dbefor e comparin g th e capita l an

dannua l costs . Comment : Th e tan

k capacitie s d o no t see m consisten t wit hthei r dimensions . Fo r example , th e smalle r tan k [(12. 0 ft)x(3. 5 ft)x(6. 0 ft ) ] ha s a tota l volume o f 1,88 5 gallons . However , a capacit y o f 1,73 0 gallon s (o r 91. 8 percen t full ) i s given . Eve ni f w e assume tha t eac htan k i s operate da t les s tha n10 0 percen t full , th e capacitie s give nstil l ar e no t consisten t wit heac hother . Th e tota l volum e o f th e large r tan k 1 s 4,85 0 gallons . However , th e liste dcapacity , 4,58 0 gallons , i s 94. 5 percen t o f the tota l volume . Wh y i s th e large r tan

k volum e utilizatio nhighe r tha ntha t o f th e smalle r tank ? Response : Si xinche s o f freeboar dspac e betwee nth e surfac e o f th e tank an dth e platin g solutio nwa s assume dwhe ncalculatin g tan k capacities . Thi s assumptio ni s base do ngoo dengineerin g practic e a s recommende db

y ACGI H industria l ventilatio nguidelines . Th e capacitie s state dwer e checke dan dar e correct . Comment : Pleas e lis t th e reference s fo r al l the cost s i nTabl e 3 . (Presumably , th e solutio nan dequipment s cost s cam e fro m Harshaw . I f so , pleas e indicate. ) Response : The cost s ar e reference di nth e text , bu t wil l b e adde d t o th e tabl e fo r clarity . Comment : Th e chromiu m solutio npurchasedan dwast e disposa l cost s shoul db e proportiona l t o th e tan k capacities—bu t they ar e not . Fo r instance , th e large-to-smal l tank capacit y rati o i s 2.65 , whil e th e correspondin g ratio s o f the solutio npurchasedan ddisposa l cost s ar e 2.5 0 an d2.21 , respectively . Pleas e correc t thi s error . Response : The wast e disposa l cost s presente di nTable s 3 an

d4 ar e correct . Th e reaso nthe cost s d o no t correlat e t o the capacit y o f th e tank s i s becaus e the transportatio ncost s ar e the sam e regardles s o f whethe r th e truc k capacit y i s full y

utilize do r not .



### *2 ,P. 4

Comment : Similarly , the tank line r cost s shoul db e directl y proportiona l t o th e interio r surfac e are a o f th e tank . However , th e large-to-smal l tank surfac e are a rati o i s 1.74 , whil e th e tan k line r cos t rati o i s 1.65 . Response : Ther e apparentl y i s a cos t saving s generate db y purchasin g a large r quantit y fo r th e larg e mode l plant . Th e cos t enclosur e fo r Harsha w wa s checke dan

dth e price s liste dfo r th e liner s ar e a s reporte db

y them . Comment : Base do nth e uni t cost s i nfootnot e "a" , th e smal l an d mediu m mode l plan t startu pcost s shoul db e $2,80 0 an d$8,300 , respectivel y (no t $3,00 0 and$9,000 , a s shown) . Response : Th e cost s wer e rounde dincorrectl y fo r th e smal l an

d mediu m plants . Th e erro r wil l b e correcte di nth e table . Comment : Th e mode l tan k direc t installatio ncost s see m quit e lo

w compare dt o th e purchase dequipmen t an dindirec t installatio ncosts . How fir m ar e thes e installatio ncosts ? Response : Th e vendo r supplie dth e cos t andamoun t o f labo r require d t o complet e th e proces s conversion . Th e validit y o f thes e number s wil l b e compare dt o th e direc t installatio ncost s supplie db y trivalen t chromiu

m plant s t o determin e i f th e vendo r estimate s shoul db e revised .