p.1 

OAR Box 1313 

Prepped by LaTeia Shed 

Document Number: 

90) ll-B-64 

Docket Number: 

A-88-02 

Printed 6/12/2008 9:03:31 AM Sheet 90 of 99 
P.2 

MRI 1^1 

A-88-02 

MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 

8H-e>-Cr M Suite 350 

401 Harrison Oaks Boulevard 

Cary, North Carolina 27513 

Telephone (919) 467-5215 

Facsimile (919) 467-8060 

Date: April 20, 1989 

(Finalized May 9, 1989) 

Subject: Update of Trivalent Chromium Process Capital Cost Data for the 

Decorative Chromium Electroplating Model Plants 

Chromium Electroplating NESHAP 

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

MRI Project 7717-K 

From: Robin Barker ^ 

To: Andrew M. Smith 

ESD/ISB/SSS (MD-13) 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711 

The trivalent chromium capital cost estimates documented 1n an MRI 

memorandum dated April 18, 1988, have been updated from October 1986 

dollars to November 1988 dollars. In addition, the contingency fee was 

increased from 3 percent of the purchased equipment cost to 20 percent to 

allow for additional expenses incurred during a process modification. 

Costs were updating using the Chemical Engineering (CE) plant index, from 

the February 1989 issue of Chemical Engineering. The most recent final CE 

plant index was for November 1988, therefore, it was chosen as the basis 

for the updated costs. The ratio of the CE Plant Indices [November 1988 

(347.8) + October 1986 (319.3)], equal to 1.09, was used to update costs. 

The revised capital cost of the trivalent chromium process conversion 

for each model tank is presented in Table 1. The representative capital 

cost of the trivalent chromium process conversion for existing facilities 

is presented in Table 2. The incremental capital cost of installing the 

trivalent chromium process rather than the hexavalent chromium process at 

new facilities is presented in Table 3. A comparison of model plant costs 

to actual reported facility costs is presented in Table 4. 

/ • 
P.3 

TABLE 1. CAPITAL COST OF CONVERTING HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS TO 

TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS FOR EACH MODEL TANK 

ELECTROPLATING FACILITIES 

Component 

Model tank 

42 ft' 72 ft' 

Startup (tank conversion) 

Initial trivalent chromium solution purchase 

Initial passivation solution, purchase3' 

Waste disposal cost. o| hexavalent 

chromium solution15' 

Subtotal 

Purchased equipment costs 

Ampere-hour controller 

Tank liner 

Replacement anodes and hangers 

Anode boxes0» 

Chiller*-? 

Filterd' 

Subtotal x 

Taxes and freight*2' 

TOTAL 

f 9 

Installation/modification'' 

Indirect costs**' 

10,900 27,300 

500 1,300 

3,700 8,200 

15,100 

1,600 

2,200 

3,300 

7,800 

9,300 

7,600 

31,800 

2,500 

34,300 

6,900 

10,600 

36,800 

1,600 

3,600 

8,700 

7,800 

14,200 

10,900 

46,800 

3.700 ' 

50,500 

10,100 

15,700 

Total cost 66,900 113,100 

3Passivation solution is required for some trivalent chromium processes. 

bWaste disposal costs include treatment and transportation. The treatment 

cost was estimated to be $80.00 per 55-gallon drum and the transportation 

cost was $845.00 per truckload. 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 based on 20 percent of purchased 

equipment costs. 

^Indirect costs include costs associated with engineering and supervision 

(10 percent), process startup (1 percent), and contingencies (20 percent) 

and are estimated to be 31 percent of the purchased equipment cost. 

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

control but also to process improvement. 

^ 
P.4 

TABLE 2. CAPITAL COST OF CONVERTING HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS TO 

TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS FOR EACH MOOEL PLANT 

Component 

Model plant size 

Small Medium Large 

Startup (tank conversion)3 

Initial trivalent chromium 

solution purchase 

Initial passivation solution 

purchase 

Waste disposal cost8of hexavalent 

chromium solution 

Subtotal 

Purchased equipment cost 

Ampere-houi** meter 

Tank liner 

Replacement^anodes and hangers 

Anode boxes 

Chiller0? 

Filter0' 

Subtotal l0 

Taxes and freight ' 

TOTAL 

J Q 

Installation/modification ' 

Indirect12'

10 

10,900 

500 

3,700 

15,100 

1,600 

2,200 

3,300 

7,800 

9,300 

7,600 

31,800 

2,500 

34,300 

6,900 

10,600 

21,800 

1,000 

7,400 

30,200 

3,200 

4,400 

6,600 

15,600 

18,600 

15,200 

63,600 

5,100 

68,700 

13,700 

21,300 

136,500 

6,500 

41,000 

184,000 

8,000 

18,000 

43,500 

. 39,000 

71,000 

54,500 

234,000 

18,700 

252,700 

50,500 

78,300 

Total cost 66,900 133,900 565,500 

3Startup 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. 

dInstallation/modification costs are based on 20 percent of purchased 

equipment costs. 

eIndirect costs include costs associated with engineering and supervision 

(10 percent), process startup (1 percent), and contingencies 

(20 percent), and are estimated to be 31 percent of the purchased 

.equipment cost. 

The total capital cost is not solely attributable to air pollution 

control but also to process improvement. 

^B 
P.5 

TABLE 3. INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COST ASSOCIATED WITH INSTALLING A TRIVALENT 

CHROMIUM PROCESS INSTEAD OF A HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM PROCESS AT NEW PLANTS 

Component 

Model plant size 

Startup (plating tank[s]) cost3' 

Initial passivation solution" 

Subtotal 

Purchased equipment cost 

Ampere-hour controller 

Anode boxes/*' 

it 

;a;i Chillerrs 

Filter 

Subtotal 10 

Taxes and freighte' 

TOTAL 

f 9 

Installation ' 

Indirect costs9' 

Small 

2,800 

500 

3,300 

1,600 

7,800 

9,300 

7,600 

26,300 

2,100 

28,400 

4,300 

8,800 

Medium 

5,500 

1,000 

6,500 

3,200 

15,600 

18,600 

15,200 

52,600 

4,200 

56,800 

8,500 

17,600 

Large 

27,500 

6,500 

34,000 

8,000 

39,000 

71,000 

54,500 

172,500 

13,800 

186,300 

27,900 

57,800 

Total cost 

Wastewater treatment cost savings'1'

11 

44,800 

-W^OO 1 

89,400 

-29,400J 

306,000 

-41,400J 

Net costk 25,200 60,000 264,600 

5? 

3Startup 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 ant-i medium model plants and $1.20 per 

allon for the large model plant. 

. assivation solution is required for some trivalent chromium processes. 

jAnode boxes are required for all double-cell processes. 

°0ptional equipment. 

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

fequipment cost, respectively. 

Installation costs are based on 15 percent of the purchased equipment 

costs. 

•^Indirect costs include costs associated with engineering and supervision 

(10 percent), process startup (1 percent), and contingencies 

(20 percent), and are based on 31 percent of the purchased equipment 

hcosts. 

"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. 

f 
P.6 

TABLE 4. COMPARISON OF PLANT CAPITAL COST DATA AND 

MODEL PLANT CAPITAL COST DATA3 

Plant Total capital cost, $ 

Plant data 

Plant 1 (small)5 71,800 

Plant 2 (small)0. 32,900 

Plant 3 (medium)0 138,600 

Model plant data 

Small 66,900 

Medium 133,900 

Large 565,500 

3Cost data are presented in November 1988 dollars. 

Process was installed in November 1987. The CE Plant Index 

for 1987 was 323.8. Ratio of CE Plant Indices was 1.07. 

°Process was installed in 1984. The CE Plant Index for 1984 

.was 322.7. Ratio of CE Plant Indices was 1.08. 

dProcess was installed in 1981. The CE Plant Index for 1981 

was 297.0. Ratio of CE Plant Indices was 1.17. 

jr