P.1 

OAR Box 1814 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

47) ll-B-25 

Docket Number: 

A-88-02 

Printed 11/7/2008 7:22:08 AM Sheet 47 of 63 
INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION 

P.2 

TT-G-ZS 

A-88-02 

FILE COPY 

MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 

May 7, 1987 

To: Project File 7717-K 

From: Charles I. Hester 

Subject: Visit to Chromium Electroplating Plants 1n Milwaukee 

I. Introduction 

On June 4 and 5, 1986, Al Vervaert and I visited the following four 

decorative chromium electroplating facilities 1n the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 

area to investigate the suitability of the plants for emission testing: 

Briggs & Stratton, Milwaukee; E. F. Brewer Company, Menomonee Falls; 

Milwaukee Plating Company, Milwaukee; and G. E. Medical Systems, 

Milwaukee. Each of the plants visited had been contacted previously by 

telephone and had been judged to be a candidate for further 

Investigation. Our goal was to locate a decorative plating shop, captive 

or Job, that would be a good site for emission testing to determine the 

performance of fume suppressants for controlling chromic ad d mist 

emissions. To qualify as a potential test site, the plant would need to 

have a typical decorative plating tank, a very efficient capture system 

(no visible fumes escaping), adequate ductwork configuration for testing 

purposes, an effective add-on emission control device, and the capability 

to operate with and without a fume suppressant. 

II. Briggs & Stratton 

It was determined during the plant visits that the only site that 

might meet the evaluation criteria was Briggs & Stratton. The plating 

shop supervisor expressed some reluctance to operate the tank without the 

fume suppressant because he felt that the capture system was not adequate 

to keep chromic ad d fumes around the tank at a safe level. Briggs & 

Stratton agreed to operate the tanks on a Saturday morning, without the 

normal addition of the fume suppressant, and use personnel sampling 

equipment to see if unsafe chromium levels occurred in the work place. 

This Investigation, along with a complete process description has been 

documented in a separate trip report, dated February 5, 1987 by Ms. Robin 

Barker, MRI. The plant contact is Mr. Tom Drews, and the address 1s 

3333 W. Good Hope Road, Glendale, Wisconsin, telephone (414) 259-5589. 

III. E. F. Brewer Company 

E. F. Brewer Company manufactures specialty furniture and accessories 

for the medical Industry. Chairs, tables, racks, and various types of 

stands are produced at this plant. The chromium plating tank 1s a 

1,300-gallon tank that is 6 feet (ft) long, 45 inches (1n.) wide, and 5 ft 

deep. The chromic acid concentration in the tank is maintained at 

MM 1 

/ 
P.3 

40 ounces per gallon (oz/gal). A fume suppressant manufactured by Bradley 

Chemicals 1s added to the tank at a rate of 1 pound per 100 pounds of 

chromic add . Double-sided draft hoods run the length of the tank and 

have slots that are 4 1n. wide along their entire length. The airflow 

rate of the system 1s designed at 40,000 standard cubic feet per minute 

(scfm). Exhaust gases from the two draft hoods are combined 1n a manifold 

at the back of the tank and Immediately enter an elbow that turns the 

airflow 90 degrees before it enters a wet scrubber. This ductwork 

configuration contains no straight sections suitable for testing between 

the hoods and the scrubber. The fume suppressant appears to be very 

effective (there was no visible mist over the tank), and the capture 

system and scrubber are probably adequate to control chromic add mist 

without the fume suppressant. However, without a suitable test location 

at the scrubber Inlet, testing at this plant 1s not feasible. The plant 

contact 1s Mr. Robert Smage and the address 1s 13901 Main Street, 

Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin 53051, telephone (414) 251-9430. 

IV. Milwaukee Plating Company 

This facility 1s a small job shop that chromium plates hardware Items 

such as hinges, drawer pulls, and beaters for electric mixers. The 

capacities of the two decorative plating tanks are 700 gal and 650 gal, 

and both contain a solution with 32 oz of chromic ad d per gallon of 

water. Both tanks use a UdyHte Zero-M1stTM fume suppressant and have 

push-pull capture systems. Each system 1s ducted to a Duall packed-bed 

scrubber. The plating tanks are located 1n the basement level of the 

plant, and the scrubbers are located on the first floor directly above the 

plating tanks. The ducts connecting the hoods and the scrubbers are 

rectangular and are located against a wall of the building. Because the 

ducts, pipes, wiring, and automatic controller unit for the tanks are 

located 1n a very small area between the tanks and the wall, access for 

sampling equipment and personnel would be nearly Impossible. It was 

decided that this facility would not be an appropriate test site because 

of the access problem, the small size of the tanks, and the relatively low 

level of workload at the plant. The plant contact is Mr. Alfred 

Mattacottl, President, and the address 1s 1434 North 4th Street, 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, telephone (414) 272-3433. 

V. G. E. Medical Systems 

The captive decorative chromium plating Hn e at G. E. has one 800-gal 

tank that Is used to plate small parts for the medical equipment 

manufactured at the plant. The plating solution contains a fume 

suppressant distributed by M&T Chemicals. Exhaust gases are vented to a 

Hell scrubber. The production schedule at this plant 1s arranged such 

that chromium plating 1s only performed once or twice per week, with 

nickel and zinc plating occurring on the alternate days. It was decided 

that this production schedule would make the completion of a source test 

1n a reasonable time difficult. The plant contact 1s Mr. Dennis Hussey, 

Environmental Coordinator, and the address 1s W-715, Post Office Box 414, 

Milwaukee, telephone (414) 544-3022. 

d.2 
P.4 

VI. Summary and Conclusions 

In summary, each of the four plants visited had one or more drawbacks 

to their selection as a test site. Only the Briggs & Stratton plant seems 

to be a potentially acceptable site, and further Investigation 1s 

necessary prior to making a final decision concerning a test there. A 

followup report on the site, dated February 5, 1987, prepared by 

Ms. Barker, MRI, gives details of the results of that-investigation.