Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Environmental Protection

August 10, 2012

Subject: Source Test Review

Multi Tool, Inc. (Formerly Multi Plastics, Inc.)

Saegertown, Crawford County

To: Matt Williams

Air Pollution Control Engineer

Southeast Regional Office

From: Robert Small

Air Pollution Control Engineer

Division of Source Testing and Monitoring

Bureau of Air Quality

Through: Timothy R. Brooks

Chief

Source Testing Section

Division of Source Testing and Monitoring

Bureau of Air Quality

Multi Tool, Inc. operates a two hard chromium-electroplating line at above location. The line 

has a combined capacity of 150-amp capacity consisting of tanks 1 and 2. Tank no. 1 has a 

rectifier capacity of 100-amp capacity and tank no. 2 has a rectifier capacity of 50-amp capacity.

The exhaust gases from these tanks are drawn through a three stage packed bed scrubber and are 

discharged to the atmosphere through an 8-inch inside diameter stack.

On August 20, 1999, personnel from Microbac Laboratories, Inc. conducted chromium (Cr) 

emission testing in the exhaust stack serving the above mentioned tanks utilizing EPA Method 

306 and analyzed the samples using graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry (GFAAS). 

The purpose of the test was to demonstrate compliance with a NESHAP MACT standard of 0.03 

mg/dscm as listed in 40 CFR, Subpart N, Section 63.342 (c) (1) (ii) and establish the pressure 

drop across the system. The consultant indicated that during testing, plating was performed at an 

average rectifier capacity of 67 amps (approximately 45% of capacity) and pressure drop of 1.75 

inches of water. He also stated on page 3 of the test report that the company discovered during 

routine cleaning and disposal operations that the manufacturer had never packed the former 

scrubber unit causing the 1998 test program results to exceed the their emission standard. The 

company has subsequently corrected this problem resulting in a significant reduction in measured 

emissions from the 1998 to 1999 test program results. The tests were conducted in accordance 

with acceptable sampling practices and the calculations are correct. The results appear to be 

valid and are acceptable to the Department.
Data File

Multi Tool, Inc.

Saegertown, Crawford County 2 August 10, 2012

The following data was extracted from the test report:

Chromium Emission Summary for Chrome Plating Tanks 1 and 2

Test Date 08/20/99

Test Run Number 1 2 3*

Pressure Drop across system, (in H2O) 1.75 1.75 1.75

Rectifier Rated Capacity,

(amps-hours)

Tank 1/Tank 2

150

Rectifier Capacity,

(amps-hours)

Tank 1/Tank 2

65

Tank 1/Tank 2

66

Tank 1/Tank 2

69

Volumetric Flowrate, dscfm 817 833 833

Cr Emission Rate, (lb/hr) <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Cr Emission Concentration, (gr/dscf) 1.169E-06 1.634E-06 7.231E-07

Cr Emission Concentration, (mg/dscm) 0.0025 0.0037 0.0017

Allowable Cr Emission Concentration, (mg/dscm) 0.03

Note: Test run 3 results was significantly lower than test runs 1 & 2 results although process conditions appeared to be identical during the 

tests.

cc: File No. 20-284

Reading File - Source Testing Section

Data File - Stack Testing

EPA/TRB

AKL/AMIS