p.1 

OAR Box 1313 

Prepped by LaTeia Shed 

Document Number: 

59) ll-B-33 

Docket Number: 

A-88-02 

Printed 6/12/2008 9:03:29 AM Sheet 59 of 99 
P.2 

.^SU% 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY A-88-02 

I' ^W 7 I 0ffice of Air Quality Planning and Standards — « * a 

V«M£w Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 ... A" ° ° 

%**•- * 

i 

t 

'-•'•-l -!-X'5 '.:..'

 :'..*"i.- >-•-- "i 

^ _ _ .mm. ..*—— — •" * 

i 

i 

3 MAR 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Capital and Annualized Costs for Control Techniques Used 

With Chromium Electroplating (ESD Project No. 85/2A) 

FROM: Andrew M. Smith ,.?'**•-^ 

Industrial Studies Branch, ESD (MD-13) 

TO: Don Gillette 

Standards Development Branch, ESD (MD-13) 

Attached is a table that lists regulatory alternatives currently 

being considered for the proposed electroplating MESHAP. Also attached 

are eight tables with capital and annualized costs for each control 

technique associated with the regulatory alternatives. Not included 

are estimates of annualized costs for replacing a hexavalent chromium 

process with a trivalent chromium process. These estimates should be 

available i.n April. 

The regulatory alternatives are not expected to change. The cost 

estimates, however, will be changed in March in response to anticipated 

changes in some of the model plant parameters and to include chromic 

acid recovery credits in the annualized cost estimates. 

If you have any questions, please call me at X5398 or Randy Strait 

of MRI at 467-5215. 

2 Attachments 

cc: Jim Crowder, ISB 

Gail Lacy, SDB 

Randy Strait, MRI 

Al Vervaert, ISB 
P.3 

TABLE 1 . CONTROL TECHNIQUES UPON WHICH THE REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 

COST IMPACTS ARE BASED 

Type of operation / 

Regulatory Alternativ e (RA) Control technique 

Hard chromium platin g 

RA I (no action ) 

RA I I 

RA I I I 

Oecorative chromium plating 

RA I (no action) 

RA I la 

RA lib 

RA III 

Chromic acid anodizing 

RA I (no action) 

RA 

RA M b 

Existing (baseline) level of control 

• 25 percent of operations uncontrolled 

• 10 percent of operations controlled by mist eliminators with 

single sets of blades that reduce uncontrolled emissions by 

85 percent 

• 65 percent of operations controlled by single packed-bed 

scrubbers that reduce uncontrolled emissions by 95 percent 

Mist eliminators (single sets of blades) that.reduce uncontrolled emissions oy 85 percent 

Single packed-bed scruDbers that reduce uncontrolled emissions 

by 95 percent 

Existing (baseline) level of control 

• 10 percent of operations uncontrolled 

• 40 percent of operations controlled by chemical fume 

suppressants that reduce uncontrolled emissions by 

90 percent 

• 50 percent of operations controlled by single packed-bed 

scrubbers that reduce uncontrolled emissions by 95 percent 

Chemical fume suppressants applied in accordance with 

monitoring and recordkeeping requirements that would ensure 

that vendor recommendations on use are followed. 

Uncontrolled emissions reduced by 95 percent 

Single packed-bed scrubbers that reduce uncontrolled emissions 

by 95 percent 

Trivalent chromium plating processes that reduce hexavalent 

chromium emissions by 100 percent 

Existing (baseline) level of control 

• 50 percent of operations uncontrolled 

• 25 percent of operations controlled by chemical fume 

suppressants that reduce uncontrolled emissions by 

90 percent 

• 25 percent of operations controlled by packed-bed scrubbers 

that reduce uncontrolled emissions by 95 percent 

Chemical fume suppressants applied in accordance with 

monitoring and recordkeeping requirements that would ensure 

that vendor recommendations on use are followed. 

Uncontrolled emissions reduced by 95 percent 

Single packed-bed scrubbers that reduce uncontrolled emissions 

by 95 percent 
P.4 

TABLE 2. CAPITAL COSTS OF MIST ELIMINATORS AND PACKED-BED 

SCRUBBERS FOR HARD CHROMIUM PLATING MOOEL PLANTS 

(October 1986 Dollars) 

Model plant size 

Small 

Purchased equipment 

Installation 

Startup . 

Total capital cost 

Medium 

Chevron-blade mist 

eliminator with a 

single set of blades 

17,940 

14,710 

180 

32,800 

Single packedbed scrubber 

31,740 

18,840 

320 

50,900 

Purchased equipment 

Installation 

Startup4 

Total capital cost 

Large 

Purchased equipment 

Installation 

- Startup* . 

Total capital cost 

26,630 

19,130 

270 

46,000 

77,510 

53,310 

780 

131,600 

45,490 

24,260 

450 

70,200 

133,400 

70,670 

1,330 

205,400 

^Startup costs are based on 1 percent of the purchased equipment cost. 

"Total capital cost is the sum of purchased equipment, installation, and 

startup costs. Costs were rounded to the nearest $100. 

3 
TABLE 3. ANNUALIZED COSTS OF MIST ELIMINATORS ANO PACKED-BED 

SCRUBBERS FOR HARD CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL PLANTS 

(October 1986 Dollars) 

Model plant size 

Small 

Utilities* . 

Labor and materials 

Indirect costsc 

Capital recovery 

Annualized cost 

Medium 

Utilities* 

Labor and materials 

Indirect costsc 

Capital recovery 

Annualized cost 

Large 

Utilities* 

Labor and materials 

Indirect costs0 

Capital recovery 

Annualized cost 

Chevron-blade mist 

eliminator with a Single packedsingle set of blades bed scrubber 

0 600 

700 1,200 

1,600 2,400 

3,800 6,000 

6,100 10,200 

0 1,300 

1,300 2,400 

2,300 3,600 

5,400 8,200 

9,000 15,500 

100 25,300 

9,400 17,000 

8,600 13,800 

15,400 24,000 

33,500 80,100 

aUti1ity costs for mist eliminators were rounded to zero because utility 

costs were less than $50/yr. 

^Includes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor and materials. 

Includes overhead, property tax, insurance, and administration. 

P.5 

^ 
P.6 

TABLE 4. CAPITAL COSTS OF PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS FOR DECORATIVE 

CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL PLANTS 

(October 1986 Dollars) 

Model plant size 

Single packedbed scrubber 

Small 

Purchased equipment 

Installation 

Startup . 

Total capital cost0 

Medium 

Purchased equipment 

Installation 

Startup* . 

Total capital cost 

Large 

Purchased equipment 

Installation" 

Startup , 

- Total capital cost0 

*Startup costs are based on 1 percent of the purchased equipment cost. 

Total capital cost is the sum of rchased equipment, installation, and 

startup costs. The costs were rounded to the nearest $100. 

17,940 

15,600 

180 

33,700 

53,820 

46,800 

540 

101,200 

65,620 

49,340 

660 

115,600 
TABLE 5. ANNUALIZED COSTS OF FUME SUPPRESSANTS AND PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS 

FOR DECORATIVE CHROMIUM PLATING MODEL PLANTS 

(October 1986 Dollars) 

P.7 

Model plant size 

Fume 

suppressant 

(permanent) 

Single 

packed-bed 

scrubber 

Small 

Utilities 

Labor and materials 

Indirect costs 

Capital recovery 

Annualized cost 

NA? 

l,100c 

NA 

NA_ 

ITIOO" 

300 

l,000c 

1,700 

3,900 

6,900 

Medium 

Utilities 

Labor and materials 

Indirect costs 

Capital recovery 

Annualized cost 

NA, 

6,300c 

NA 

NA_ 

6,300 

1,600 

6,000c 

6,100 

11.800 

25,500 

Large 

Utilities 

Labor and materials 

Indirect costs 

Capital recovery 

Annualized cost 

*NA = not applicable. 

NA, 

22,900c 

NA 

NA_ 

22,900 

8,900 

9,400c 

7,800 

13,500 

39,600 

Includes material costs of makeup and maintenance additions only, 

costs are not included because labor associated with providing 

maintenance additions is negligible. 

^Includes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor and materials. 

Includes overhead, property tax, insurance, and administration. 

Labor 
P.8 

TABLE 6. CAPITAL COST OF REPLACING A HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS 

WITH A TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS AT EXISTING DECORATIVE 

CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING FACILITIES 

(October 1986 Dollars) 

_-• 

Component 

Startup (tank conversion)* 

Initial trivalent chromium 

solution purchase 

Waste disposal cost of hexavalent 

chromium solution 

Subtotal 

Purchased equipment 

Ammeter 

Tank liner 

Replacement anodes and hangers 

Filter 

Subtotal . 

Taxes and freight 

TOTAL 

Installation/modification0 

Indirect 

Total cost 

Small 

10,000 

3,400 

13,400 

200 

2,000 

3,000 

7,000 

12,200 

1,000 

13,200 

600 

1,800 

29,000 

Model plant size 

Medium 

30,000 

10,200 

40,200 

600 

6,000 

9,000 

21,000 

36,600 

2,900 

39,500 

1,800 

5,500 

87,000 

Large 

125,000 

37,500 

162,500 

1,000 

16,500 

40,000 

50,000 

107,500 

8,600 

116,100 

3,000 

16,000 

297,600 

*Startup costs include the initial makeup of the trivalent chromium 

plating solution and the disposal cost of the hexavalent chromium plating 

solution. 

Taxes and freight are estimated to be 3 and 5 percent of the base 

equipment cost, respectively. 

^Includes new equipment installation and tank cleaning costs. 

Indirect costs include costs associated with engineering and supervision, 

process startup, and contingencies and are estimated to be 14 percent of 

the purchased equipment cost. 

/ 
TABLE 7. INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COST OF INSTALLING A TRIVALENT CHROMIUM 

PROCESS INSTEAD OF A HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS AT NEW DECORATIVE 

CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING FACILITIES 

(October 1986 Dollars) 

P.9 

Component Small 

Model plant size 

Medium Large 

Startup* 

Purchased equipment 

Ammeter 

Filter 

Subtotal , 

Taxes and freight 

TOTAL 

Installation0 

Indirect 

2,800 

200 

7,000 

7,200 

600 

8,300 

600 

21,000 

21,600 

It 700 

27,500 

1,000 

50,000 

51,500 

4,100 

7,800 

100 

1,100 

23,300 

400 

3,300 

55,600 

600 

7,800 

Total capital cost 11,200 8,300 

Net capital cost (6,200) 8,300 

91,500 

Wastewater treatment cost savingse f (18,000)g (27,000)h (38,000)' 

53,500 

*Startup cost for new plants would only consist of the incremental cost of 

the trivalent chromium bath solution over the hexavalent chromium bath 

solution. The incremental cost of the trivalent over the hexavalent 

chromium plating solution is $1.60 per gallon of plating solution for the 

small and medium model plants and $1.20 per gallon for the large model 

plant. 

Taxes and freight are estimated to be 3 and 5 percent of the base 

equipment cost, respectively. 

installation costs are the costs associated with installation of the new 

equipment and are based on 16 labor-hours at $8.00 per hour for each 

model tank. Costs were rounded to the nearest $100. 

Indirect costs include costs associated with engineering and supervision, 

process startup, and contingencies and are based on 14 percent of the 

purchased equipment costs. 

Represents the capital cost of a hexavalent chromium reduction unit for 

fthe wastewater volume associated with each model plant. 

Parentheses indicate negative values. 

jJBatch process. 

Continuous process. 
P.10 

TABLE 8. CAPITAL COSTS OF PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS 

FOR CHROMIC ACID ANOOIZING MODEL PLANTS 

(October 1986 Dollars) 

Single packedModel plant size bed scrubber 

Small 

Purchased equipment 17,940 

Installation 15,600 

Startup* . 180 

Total capital cost0 33,700 

Large 

Purchased equipment 48,820 

Installation 23,950 

Startup* . 490 

Total capita-l cost0 73,300 

*Startup costs are 1 percent of the purchased equipment cost. 

Total capital cost is the sum of the purchased equipment, installation, 

and startup costs. The costs were rounded to nearest $100. 

9 
p.11 

TABLE 9. ANNUALIZED COSTS OF PACKED-BED SCRUBBERS 

FOR CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING MOOEL PLANTS 

(October 1986 Dollars) 

Single packedModel plant size bed scrubber 

Small 

Utilities 300 

Labor and materials* 1,000 

Indirect costs0 1,700 

Capital recovery 3,900 

Total annualized cost 6,900 

Large 

Utilities 3,200 

Labor and materials 4,800 

Indirect costs0 4,500 

Capital recovery 8,600 

Annualized cost 21,100 

*Inc1udes operator, supervisor, and maintenance labor and materials. 

Includes overhead, property tax, insurance, and administration. 

/£>