p.1 

OAR Box 1313 

Preppedby LaTeiaShed 

Document Number: 

61) ll-B-35 

Docket Number: 

A-88-02 

Printed 6/12/2008 9:03:29 AM Sheet 61 of 99 
P.2 

MRI® -nze>-3S A-88-02 

MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUT 

-'•'1 H.v -Cf. Oo-vS I'Oinewr 

r.-irv NC . ::."• 

Date: April 18, 1988 

(Finalized June 30, 1988) 

Subject: Summary of the Capital Costs Associated with the Installation of 

the Trivalent Chromium Plating Process at Existing and New 

Decorative Chromium Electroplating Plants 

Chromium Electroplating NESHAP 

EPA Contract 68-02-3817; ESD Project 85/02a 

MRI Project 7717-K 

From: Robin Barker 

Mark McLaughlin 

To: Andrew Smith 

ESD/ISB/SSS (MD-13) 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711 L~~-.Z'-Z 

I. Introduction 

This memorandum presents a model plant analysis of the capital costs 

for converting decorative chromium electroplating model plants from the 

hexavalent chromium process to the trivalent chromium process and 

incremental capital costs for installing a trivalent chromium process 

instead of a hexavalent chromium process at new plants. Also presented 

are the results of a preliminary analysis of the incremental annualized 

costs of trivalent chromium processes over the hexavalent chromium 

process. At present, the hexavalent process is the predominant process 

used in the industry, although interest in and use of the trivalent • 

chromium process is increasing. The trivalent chromium process is 

reported.to be technically superior and has minimal environmental 

impacts.'"4 Information obtained from a vendor indicates that there are 

approximately 100.electroplating plants currently using the trivalent 

chromium process." 

II. Information Sources 

Cost data for converting from a hexavalent chromium to a trivalent 

chromium process were obtained from four manufacturers of hexavalent and 

trivalent chromium plating baths. """ Table 1 presents the manufacturers 

and the trivalent chromium process trade names for which cost data were 

obtained. 

There are two types of trivalent chromium processes (single-cell and 

double-cell) currently marketed. The main difference between the singleand double-cell processes is that the double-cell process requires a 

physical separation of the anode from the plating solution. In the 

/• 
P.3 

double-cell process, the anodes are encased in anode boxes which are lined 

with a permeable membrane and contain a dilute solution of sulfuric acid 

which surrounds the anodes. In the single-cell process the anodes are 

placed in direct contact with the plating solution. The single-cell 

processes are sold by Harshaw/Filtrol Partnership and 0MIm/Udylite 

International Corporation. The double-cell processes are sold by 

Frederick Gumm Chemical Company and MacDermid, Inc. The capital cost 

estimates developed for the model plants are representative of either 

process and are based on a compilation of cost data obtained from the four 

vendors. The individual cost data supplied b,y each vendor are presented 

in Tables 2 and 3 for the 42 square feet [ft'I and 72-ft' model tanks, 

respectively. All costs are in October 1986 dollars. The vendor 

estimates for the process conversion of the 42-ft' model tank ranged from 

$22,800 to $31,700. The vendor estimates for the process conversion of 

the 72-ft model tank ranged from $46,700 to $58,500. These narrow ranges 

in cost estimates for each model tank indicate consistency in the cost of 

the four trivalent chromium processes. 

III. Capital Costs for Existing Facilities 

A. Model Tanks 

Capital cost,informatiot* was obtained for the two different sizes of 

model tanks (42 ft" and 72 ft of surface area) that are used in the model 

plants. Table 4 presents the model tank parameters upon which the capital 

cost estimates are based. 

Table 5 presents the capital cost associated with the process 

conversion for each tank size. The capital cost includes the direct cost 

of new equipment, startup and installation/modification cost, plus 

indirect costs, taxes, and freight charges. The new equipment purchases 

consist of an ampere-hour controller(s) used to determine the frequency of 

chemical additions and to provide automatic control of additions of 

required chemicals to the bath, a tank liner, replacement anodes and 

hangers, and anode boxes. The purchase costs of chillers and filters also 

are presented in Table 5, but these items are considered to be optional 

equipment purchases. Chillers are required for some operations where 

parts are plated at high current densities and the production load is 

heavy or for operations where the temperature of the cooling water is too 

high to maintain the bath within its normal operating temperature 

range.0- Filters are usually recommended to aid in the control of 

plating bath contaminants. 

The startup (tank conversion) cost includes the initial makeup cost 

of the trivalent chromium plating solution, "he initial makeup cost cf the 

passivation solution, and the disposal cost (transportation and treatment) 

of the hexavalent solution as hazardous waste, "^he passivation solution 

is required for some double-cell trivalent chromium processes and improves 

the corrosion resistance of the part following plating. The capital cost 

of a passivation tank is not included in the equipment costs because an 

existing rinse tank can be converted to hold the passivation solution. 

The cost to dispose of the hexavalent plating solution was obtained from 

Chemical Waste Management, Inc., in Anaheim, California.' 
P.4 

Installation/modification costs are based on data obtained from 

actual operating plants agd are estimated to be 20 percent of the 

purchased equipment cost. Installation/modification costs include 

installation of new equipment, tank cleaning, and any modifications to the 

plating line, electrical supply, or cooling system. Indirect costs 

include costs associated with engineering and supervision (IQ percent), 

process startup (1 percent), and contingencies (3 percent).' Taxes and 

freight charges wereQestimated at 3 and 5 percent of the base equipment 

cost, respectively.' 

B. Model Plants 

The capital cost information obtained for each tank size was used to 

calculate the capital costs for converting three model plants of varying 

size (small, medium, and large) from the hexavalent to the trivalent 

chromium Rrocess. The small and medium model plants consist of one and 

two 42-ft'2model tanks, respectively. The large model plant consists of 

five 72-ft model tanks. The capital cost of conversion for each model 

plant is presented in Table 6. 

IV. Capital Costs for New Facilities 

The incremental capital cost associated with installing the 

trivalent chromium process instead of the hexavalent chromium process at a 

new facility is presented in Table 7 for each model plant. The capital 

cost includes the direct cost of new equipment, installation, and startup 

plus indirect costs, taxes, and freight charges. 

The new equipment purchases consist of equipment that is unique to 

the trivalent chromium process: an ampere-hour controller(s) used to 

determine and automatically make chemical additions to the plating bath, 

anode boxes, a filter system, and chillers. The filter system and 

chillers are optional equipment purchases. The incremental cost of anodes 

and hangers for a trivalent chromium bath over a hexavalent chromium bath 

is insignificant and is not included in Table 7. The cost of a tank liner 

is not included as an equipment cost because a tank liner also would be 

needed for a hexavalent chromium tank. The startup (plating tankfs]) cost 

includes the incremental cost of the initial makeup solution for trivalent 

chromium over hexavalent chromium and the initial makeup cost of the 

passivation solution. Installation costs are based on data obtained from 

plants, and are estimated to be 15 percent of the purchased equipment 

cost.' Indirect costs were based on 14 percent of the purchased equipment 

cost and include costs associated with engineering and supervision, 

process startuD, and contingencies.' Taxes and freight,charges were 3 

and 5 percent of the base equipment cost, respectively." 

A benefit of the trivalent chromium process is the elimination of 

the need for hexavalent chromium reduction units in the wastewater 

treatment system. The capital cost for the hexavalent cnromium reduction 

system was obtained from a 1985 EPA document."' The capital cost of 

hexavalent chromium reduction units includes storage and feed systems for 

the treatment reagents, as well as the costs for hardware, piping, 

^3 
P.5 

4 

instrumentation, and utility connections. These cost estimates also are 

presented in Table 7. The volume of process wastewater to be treated was 

estimated for each model plant based on information published in the 

Effluent Guidelines development document." The small model plant was 

assumed to have a batch system because of its low volume of wastewater. 

The medium and large model plants were assumed to be equipped with a 

continuous wastewater treatment system. Treatment equipment and ancillary 

items required strictly for the reduction purposes were identified and 

their associated costs were determined. The cost of the reduction 

equipment was subtracted from the process capital cost to achieve the net 

capital cost for new facilities. 

V. Case Studies 

Case studies were produced for three decorative chromium plating 

facilities that had converted from a hexavalent chromium process to a 

trivalent chromium process. Table 8 presents a description of the plating 

operation agd^he^trivalent chromium process operated at each of the 

facilities. ' ' H Table 9 presents the capital cost data provided by the 

three facilities for the conversion^from a hexavalent chromium process to 

a trivalent chromium process. •'

 ,l This information was used to confirm 

or validate the estimating procedure for capital costs developed from the 

vendor quotations. 

Based on information obtained from vendors and confirmed during site 

visits to the three trivalent chromium plating facilities, the capital 

cost of conversion is dependent upon the size of the operation, the amount 

and type of available equipment, and the configuration of the existing 

decorative chromium plating line. The capital cost data obtained from the 

facilities visited was used to determine whether the capital costs 

estimated for the model plants are representative of what existing plants 

have incurred to convert from a hexavalent chromium process to a trivalent 

chromium process. 

Table 10 presents a comparison of the actual capital cost data 

obtained from industry to the capital cost estimates developed for the 

model plants. Plants 1 and 2 would be classified as small operations, and 

Plant 3 would be considered a medium operation. The small model plant 

capital cost estimate is near the upper end of the range represented by 

the costs submitted by Plants 1 and 2. Plant 1 operates a double-cell 

trivalent chromium process, and Plant 2 operates a single-cell process. 

The double-cell process is more expensive to convert because of the need 

for anode boxes and the passivation solution. Also, .--Iant 1 incurred more 

modification costs than Plant 2. Because the model olant cost estimates 

are based on both process costs and the cost to modify the plating nne, 

the cost for the small model plant would be expected to be comparaole to 

the costs submitted by Plant 1. The capital cost data obtained from 

Plant 2 are comparable to the capital cost estimated for the medium model 

plant, even though the equipment required and modifications neeaed were 

not the same. 

-f 
P.6 

VI. Preliminary Results of the Annualized Cost Analysis 

Based on information obtained during site visits to trivalent 

chromium plants, the annualized cost for the trivalent chromium process is 

substantially lower than the annualized cost for the hexavalent chromium 

process because of the reduction in rejects, increase in rack populations, 

and the decrease in wastewater treatment costs. Annualized cost data from 

three plants that were visited and had converted from the hexavalent to 

trivalent chromium process indicated that the trivalent chromium process 

generated an annual cost savings of $14?000/yr to $153,000/yr for small 

and medium operations, respectively."'1 

O 
P.7 

TABLE 1. LIST OF MANUFACTURERS WHO PROVIDED COST INFORMATION 

ON DECORATIVE TRIVALENT CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING PROCESSES 

Manufacturer/Location Trivalent process 

Harshaw/Filtrol Partnership, Cleveland, Ohio Tri-Chrome'*- LC Plusa 

OMr/Udylite International Corp., Warren, Mich. Tricrolyte® IIId 

MacDermid, Inc., Waterbury, Conn. TrimacTM Cr-IIIb 

Frederick Gumm Chemical Company, Kearny, N.J. Envirochrome 

^Single-cell process. 

Double-cell process. 

/ 
P.8 

TABLE 2. VENDOR CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES FOR CONVERTING THE 42-ft' MODEL 

TANK FROM A HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS TO A TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS 

Component 

New equipment costs 

1. Anode boxes, 5 

2. Anodes and hangars, S 

3. Passivation tank 

a. Capital cost of tank, S 

b. Cost of initial makeup 

4. Tank 1iner 

solution, $ 

5. Ampere-hour meter or controller 

6. Fi1ter 

7. Ch i11er 

Subtotal 

Modification costs 

1. Tank cleanina, S 

2. Plating line modification, 

5. Modifications to electrical 

i. Modifications to cooling sv 

5. initial makeuo cost of Cr 

Subtotal 

Installation costs, $ 

1. Labor cost, 5 

2. Process downtime, days' 

3. Indirect costs, J 

Subtotal 

Tota1J 

5 

supply. S^ 

stem, r 

solution, S 

A

a 

NAe 

3,000 

NA 

NA 

2,000 

200 

7,000 

NA 

12,200 

f 

NA 

NA 

NA 

10,000 

10,000 

576 

3 

NA 

"575 

22,800 

Vendor 

B° 

NA 

4,600 

NA 

NA 

2,000 

NA 

NA 

8.500 

15,100 

400 

3,000 

NA 

NA 

10.700 

14,100 

2,520 

5 

NA 

2^520 

31,700 

COS T data 

c7,200 

NA 

5,000 

500 

1,500 

1,500 

NA 

NA 

13,700 

200 

MA 

NA 

NA 

11.300 

i1,300 

36 

1 

NA 

35 

27,200 

0

d 

13,200 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

13,200 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

14,700 

14,/00 

NA 

NA 

NA 

U 

27,900 

aVendor A = Harsnaw/Fi I trol Partnership (single-cell process). 

_Vendor B = OMI/Udylite International Corooration (single-cell process). 

'"Vendor C = MacOermid, Incorporated (double-cell process). 

"'vendor D = Frederick Gumm Chemic3l Company (double-cell process). 

TNA = not applicaoie. 

'Tank cleaning cost is included in the installation cost. 

^Assumes tank is equipped with 12-volt rectifiers. 

'"'Assumes tank is equipped with external shell-and-tube heat exchangers with water used as the 

.coolant. 

'Assumes Dlant is converted during a normal holiday snutdown or over a nonworking weekend 

.! day = 8-hour sn i ft. 

-'The total capital cost provided by each individual vendor is lower than the capital cost 

estimated for rhe model tanks because vendors were basing the estimates on tneir trivalent 

chromium process and did not include all of the optional equipment. Also, the vendor aata 

was not aiways complete. 

7 
TABLE 3. VENDOR CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES FOR CONVERTING THE 72-ft" MODEL 

TANK FROM A HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS TO A TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS 

Vendor cost data 

Component 

New equipment costs 

P.9 

1. 

2. 

5. 

4 . 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Anode boxes, S 

Anodes and hangars , 

Passivation tank 

a. Cap i ta I 

b. Cost of 

Tank Iiner, 

Ampere-hour 

F iIter 

Chi Iler 

cost of tank, J 

initial makeup solution, 

S 

meter or controller, 5 

Subtotal 

Modification costs 

3. 

4. 

6. 

Subtotal 

Tank cleaning , J 

Platin g lin e modification , S 

Modification s t o electrica l supply 

Modification s t o coolin g svstem, S 

Initia l makeup cos t of Cr 

59 

solution, $ 

installation costs, S 

1. Labor cost, S/h 

2. Process downtime, 

3. Indirect costs, 5 

Subtotal 

days' 

NAe 

8,000 

NA 

NA 

3,300 

200 

10,000 

NA 

21,500 

f 

NA 

NA 

NA 

24,600 

24,600 

576 

3 

NA 

575" 

NA 

7,500 

NA 

NA 

3,500 

NA 

NA 

13.000 

24,000 

600 

3,000 

NA 

• NA 

28,400 

32,000 

2,520 

5 

NA 

27520 

7,200 

NA 

12,000 

1.200 

3,000 

1,500 

NA 

NA 

24,900 

200 

NA 

NA 

NA 

29,900 

30,100 

36 

1 

NA 

35 

19,200 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

19,200 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

38.900 

38,900 

NA 

NA 

NA 

"5 

Tota lJ 46,700 58,500 55,000 58,100 

^Vendor A = Harshaw/FiItrol Partnership (single-cell process). 

Vendor 8 = OMI/Udylite international Corporation (single-cell process). 

cVendor C = MacOermid, Incorporated (double-cell process). 

'-Vendor 0 = Frederick Gumm Chemicai Company (double-cell process). 

eNA = not applicable. 

'Tank cleaning cost is included in The installation cost. 

•^Assumes tank is equipped with 12-voit rectifiers. 

Assumes tank is equipped with external shell-and-tube heat exchangers with water used as the 

.coolant. 

'Assumes plant is converted during a normal holiday snutdown or over a nonworking weekend 

.1 day = 3-hour shi ft. 

JThe total caoital cost provided by each individual vendor is lower than the capital cost 

estimated for the model tanks because vendors were basing the estimates on their trivalent 

chromium process and did not include all of the optional equipment. Also, the vendor data 

was not always complete. 
P.10 

TABLE 4. MODEL TANK PARAMETERS FOR DECORATIVE CHROMIUM 

PLATING MODEL TANKS 

Model tank 

Model tank information 42 ft 72 ft" 

Tank dimensions, ft 12.0,3.5,6.0 12.0,6.0,9.0 

Tank capacity, gal 1,730 4,580 

f 
P.11 

10 

TABLE 5. CAPITAL COST OF CONVERTING HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS TO 

TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS FOR EACH MODEL TANK 

Model tank 

Component 42 ft2 72 ft: 

Startup (tank conversion) cost 

Initial trivalent chromium solution purchase 10,000 25,000 

Initial passivation solution purchasea,H 500 1,200 

Waste disposal cost o| hexavalent 3,400 7,500 

chromium solution^' 

Subtotal 13,900 33,700 

Purchased equipment costs 

Ampere-hour controller" 

Tank liner" 

Replacement anodes and hangers' 

Anode boxes0'" 

Chillerd» 

Filterd' 

Subtotal 10 

Taxes and freight*5' 

TOTAL 

f 9 Installation/modification • 

Indirect costs^' 10 

1,500 

2,000 

3,000 

7,200 

8,500 

7,000 

29,200 

2,300 

31,500 

6,300 

4,400 

1,500 

3,300 

8,000 

7,200 

13,000 

10,000 

43,000 

3,400 

46,400 

9,300 

6,500 

Total costh 56,100 95,900 

^Passivation solution is required for some trivalent chromium processes. 

bWaste disposal costs include treatment and transportation. The treatment 

cost was estimated to be S80.00 per 55-gallon drum and the transportation 

cost was S845.00 per truckload (80 drums). Any fraction of a load was 

costed out as a full load. 

^Anode boxes are required for all double-cell processes. 

Optional equipment. 

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

equipment cost, respectively. 

Installation/modification costs are estimated to be 20 percent of the 

purchased equipment 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. 

The total capital cost is not solely attributable to air pollution 

control but also to process improvement. 

t& 
P.12 

TABLE 6. 

Component 

11 

CAPITAL COST OF CONVERTING HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS TO 

TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS FOR EACH MODEL PLANT 

Model plants • 

Small Medium Large 

Model tanks 

Number of tanks 

Surface area of tanks, ft 

Startup (tank conversion) costa 

Initial trivalent chromium 

solution purchase 

Initial pa§sivation solution 

purchase 

Waste disposal cost3of hexavalent 

chromium solution 

Subtotal 

Purchased equipment cost 

Ampere-hour meter 

Tank liner 

Replacement^anodes and hangers 

Anode boxes 

Chiller**' 

Filter0' 

Subtotal 

Taxes and freight0, 

TOTAL 

rl

 a 

Installation/modification ' 

1 

42 

10,000 

500 

3,400 

2 

42 

20,000 

1,000 

6,800 

5 

72 

125,000 

6,000 

37,500 

Indirect costs 

e , i o 

13,900 

1,500 

2,000 

3,000 

7,200 

8,500 

7,000 

29,200 

2,300 

31,500 

6,300 

4,400 

27,800 

3,000 

4,000 

6,000 

14,400 

17,000 

14,000 

58,400 

4,600 

63,100 

12,600 

8,800 

168,500 

7,500 

16,500 

40,000 

36,000 

65,000 

50,000 

215,000 

17,000 

232,000 

46,500 

32,500 

Total cost 56,100 112,200 479,500 

aStartup costs include the initial makeup of the trivalent chromium solution and the disposal cost of the hexavalent chromium plating solution. 

Optional equipment. 

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

.equipment cost, respectively. 

aInsta11ation/modification costs are based on 20 percent of purchased 

equipment costs. 

eIndirect costs include costs associated with engineering and supervision, 

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

the purchased equipment cost. 

f The total capital cost is not solely attributable to air pollution 

control but also to process improvement. 

tl 
P.13 

12 

TABLE 7. INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COST ASSOCIATED WITH INSTALLING A TRIVALENT 

CHROMIUM PROCESS INSTEAD OF A HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS AT NEW PLANTS 

Model plants 

Component Small Medium Large 

Model tanks 

Number of tanks 

Surface area of tanks, ft" 

Startup Costs 

Startup (plating tank(s)) cost*'1 

Initial passivation solution ' 

Subtotal 

Purchased equipment cost 

Ampere-hour controller 

Anode boxes0'* 

Chillers'?' 

Filter0' 

Subtotal 10 

Taxes and freighte' 

TOTAL g 

Installation ' 10 

Indirect costs^' 

1 

42 

2,800 

500 

3,300 

1,500 

7,200 

8,500 

7,000 

24,200 

2,000 

26,200 

4,000 

3,700 

2 

42 

5,500 

1,000 

6,500 

3,000 

14,400 

17,000 

14,000 

48,400 

3,900 

52,300 

7,800 

7,300 

5 

72 

27,500 

6,000 

33,500 

7,500 

36,000 

65,000 

50,000 

158,500 

12,700 

171,200 

25,700 

24,000 

Total cost 

U 11 

Wastewater treatment cost savings ' 

Net costk 

37,200 

-18,000' 

19,200 

73,900 

-27,000J' 

46,900 

254,400 

-38,000j 

216,400 

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 cost differential between the trivalent chromium plating 

solution and the hexavalent 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." 

^Passivation solution is required for some trivalent chromium processes. 

SAnode boxes are required for all double-cell processes. 

^Optional equipment. 

Taxes and freight are based on 3 and 5 percent of the base equipment 

fcost, respectively. 

^Installation costs are based on 15 percent of the purchased equipment costs, 

"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 

•the wastewater volume associated with each model plant. 

•Batch process. 

^Continuous process. 

The total capital cost is not solely attributable to air pollution 

control but also to process improvement. 

/<X 
TABLE 8. PLANT PARAMETERS FOR THE TRIVALENT CHROMIUM FACILITIES THAT PROVIDED COST DATA 

Plant information Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 

No. of plating lines or tanks 1 

Dimensions of tanks, ft 12, 3.0, 6.0 

Tank capacity, gal 

Trivalent chromium process 

and type 

(Single-cell process) 

Operating time, h/yr 

1,480 

Trimac'" Cr III 

MacDermid, Inc. 

4,000 

1 

4.6, 3.8, 5.5 

650 

Tricrolyte w II I 

OMr/Udylite Intl . Corp. 

(Double-cell process) 

2,880 

2 @ 16.5, 3.8, 7.2 

10.0, 2.5, 5.5 

2 @ 3,140 

935 

Tri-Chrome-* LC Plus 

Harshaw/Filtrol 

Parternship 

(Single-cell process) 

2,700 
14 

TABLE 9. CAPITAL COST FOR CONVERTING FROM A HEXAVALENT PROCESS TO A 

TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS FOR THE TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PLATING FACILITIES 

Plant cost data 

Component 

New equipment costs 

1. Anode boxes 

Anodes and hangars 

Passivation tank 

a. Capital cost of tank, S 

b. Cost of initial makeup solution, 5 

Tank Iiner, S 

Ampere-hour meter or controller, 5 

F iIter, S 

Chiller or cooling coils, J 

Plating tank, $ 

Rectifiers, $ 

Automatic D H and temperature controllers, i 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

15,860 

2,895 

1 ,400 

650 

NA 

• ,200 

3,800 

NA 

6,150 

NA 

2,025 

NAa 

1,800 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

5,000 

4,200 

NA 

15,000 

NA 

NA 

17,800 

NA 

NA 

3,000 

2,200 

NA 

31,400 

NA 

39,600 

NA 

Subtotal 33.980 26,000 94,000 

Modification costs 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Subtotal 

Tank cleaning, S 

Plating line modification, S 

Modifications to electrical supply, 5 

Modifications to cooling system, $ 

Disposal of Cr+ ° solution, S 

Initial cost of Cr solution makeup, 3 

2,000 

2,170 

100 

400 

9,450 

13,800 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

4,500 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

24,500 

27,920 4,500 24,500 

installation costs, S 5,160 NA NA 

TotaI' 67,100 30,500 118,500 

dNA = not applicable. 

Numbers were rounded to nearest S100. 

/? 
P.16 

15 

TABLE 10. COMPARISON OF PLANT CAPITAL COST DATA AND 

MODEL PLANT CAPITAL COST DATA 

Plant Total capital cost, $ 

Plant data 

Plant 1 (small) 67,100 

Plant 2 (small) 30,500 

Plant 3 (medium) 118,500 

Model plant data 

Small 56,100 

Medium 112,200 

Large 479,500 

/S* 
P.17 

16 

VII. References 

1. Cost Enclosure for Decorative Chromium Electroplating Processes: 

Harshaw/Filtrol Partnership. Prepared for U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. June 22, 

1987. p. 4. 

2. Cost Enclosure for Decorative Chromium Electroplating Processes: 

OMI/Udylite International Corporation. Prepared for U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina. June 5, 1987. p. 4. 

3. Cost Enclosure for Decorative Chromium Electroplating Processes: 

Frederick Gumm Chemical Company, Inc. Prepared for U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina. June 22, 1987. p. 4. 

4. Cost Enclosure for Decorative Chromium Electroplating Processes: 

MacDermid, Inc. Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. June 18, 1987. p. 4. 

5. Telecon. Barker, R., MRI, to Masarik, D., Harshaw/Filtrol 

Partnership, Cleveland, Ohio. September 16, 1987. Information on 

installation and modification costs associated with the trivalent 

chromium process conversion. 

6. Telecon. Barker, R., MRI, to Masarik, D., Harshaw/Filtrol 

Partnership, Cleveland, Ohio. December 10, 1987. Information on 

chillers and ampere-hours meters for trivalent chromium plating. 

7. Telecon. Barker, R., MRI, to Cepla, A., OMF/Udylite International 

Corporation, Warren, Michigan. December 14, 1987. Information on 

chiller requirements for trivalent chromium plating. 

8. Telecon. Barker, R., MRI, to Gloverner, S., Chemical Waste 

Management, Anaheim, California. September 16, 1987. Information 

about hexavalent chromium plating solution disposal costs. 

9. Memo from Barker, R., MRI, to Smith, Andrew, EPA/ISB. March 7, 

1988. Trip report for Universal Gym and Nissan Company, Cedars 

Rapids, Iowa. 

10. Neveril, R. 8., Gard, Inc. Capital and Operating Costs of Selected 

Air Pollution Control Systems. Prepared for U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

Publication No. EPA-450/5-30-002. December 1977. p. 3-3. 

11. Environmental Pollution Control Alternatives: Reducing Water 

Pollution Control Costs in the Electroplating Industry. U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA 

Publication: 625/5-85/016. September 1985. p. 7. 

tc 
P.18 

17 

12. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

Standards for the Metal Finishing Industry. U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA Publication: 

440-1-80-091A. June 1980. p. V-12. 

13. Memo from Barker, R., MRI, to Smith, Andrew, EPA/ISB. March 7, 

1988. Trip report for Lufkin Rule, Apex, North Carolina. 

14. Memo from Barker, R., MRI, to Smith, Andrew, EPA/ISB. March 7, 

1988. Trip report for Plant ABC, Southeastern United States. 

Attachment 

/ /