DRAFT 

Date: June 25, 2010 

Subject: Actual vs. Allowable Emissions for Chromium Electroplating Plants 

 Emission Standards Technical Support and Post Promulgation Activities 

 EPA Contract No. EP-D-06-118; EPA Work Assignment No. 4-6 

 RTI Project No. 0210426.004.006 

From: Richard Marinshaw 

To: Phil Mulrine, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG 

The purpose of this memorandum is to present the available data on actual emissions for 

chromium electroplating sources and compare those data to emissions that would be allowed 

under the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for Hard and 

Decorative Chromium Electroplating and for Chromium Anodizing Tanks (40 CFR 63, 

subpart N). Section I of this memorandum provides background information on the NESHAP, 

and Section II summarizes the available data on actual emissions from facilities subject to the 

NESHAP. Section III discusses the data. References are provided in Section IV. 

I. Background

 The Chromium Electroplating NESHAP applies to three types of operations: hard 

chromium electroplating, decorative chromium electroplating, and chromium anodizing. For 

hard chromium electroplating, the rule distinguishes between large facilities and small facilities. 

Large facilities are defined as those that have a maximum cumulative potential rectifier capacity 

of at least 60 million ampere-hours per year (amp-hr/yr), and small facilities are those with a 

maximum cumulative potential rectifier capacity less than 60 million amp-hr/yr. Table 1 

summarizes the emission limits specified in the NESHAP for each of these types of plants. 

These emission limits apply to all existing chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing 

tanks. 

Table 1. Chromium Electroplating NESHAP Emission Limits for Existing Sources 

Emission limita

Process type/facility size mg/dscm gr/dscf 

Hard chromium electroplating, large facility 0.015 6.6 x 10-6

Hard chromium electroplating, small facility 0.030 1.3 x 10-5

Decorative chromium, all facilities 0.010 4.4 x 10-6

Chromium anodizing, all facilities 0.010 4.4 x 10-6

a

 mg/dscm = milligrams per dry standard cubic meter; gr/dscf = grains per dry standard 

 cubic foot. 
2 

II. Comparison of Allowable to Actual Emissions

 This section summarizes the available data on actual emissions; that is, the results of 

stack emission tests on chromium electroplating sources. Data are presented for hard chromium 

electroplating and decorative chromium electroplating sources; no stack test data were available 

for chromium anodizing tanks. 

 Hard Chromium Electroplating

 Tables 2 and 3 summarize the available data on actual chromium emissions for hard 

chromium electroplating tanks located at large facilities and small facilities, respectively. The 

data presented in the tables generally are the results of initial performance tests. In some cases, a 

single electroplating tank was tested, but for several of the tests, the data represent emissions 

from two or more tanks that were exhausted to a common control device and stack. The tables 

indicate the emission control method used, concentration of total chromium emissions, the 

applicable emission limit (also in units of concentration), and the ratio of allowable emissions 

(i.e., the emission limit) to actual emissions. 

Table 2. Comparison of Actual to Allowable Emissions for Large Hard Chromium Plants 

 Emissions, mg/dscm 

Company 

 

City 

 

State 

Emission 

controla Actual Allowable 

Allowable 

to actual 

Empire Hard Chrome Chicago IL PBS 0.013 0.015 1.2 

Empire Hard Chrome Chicago IL PBS 0.013 0.015 1.2 

Chromium Plating Co. Tulsa OK CMP 0.013 0.015 1.2 

Chromium Plating Co. Tulsa OK CMP 0.011 0.015 1.3 

Empire Hard Chrome Chicago IL PBS 0.010 0.015 1.5 

National Chromium Co. Inc. Putnam CT CMP 0.0096 0.015 1.6 

Ultra Plating Green Bay WI CMP 0.0080 0.015 1.9 

Electro-Tech Inc. Meadville PA CMP 0.0063 0.015 2.4 

EN-CHRO Plating, Ltd. Melrose Park IL CMP 0.0060 0.015 2.5 

Huntington Plating Inc. Huntington WV CMP 0.0058 0.015 2.6 

Quebecor World - Franklin Franklin KY CMP 0.0055 0.015 2.7 

Armoloy of Illinois Inc. De Kalb IL CMP 0.0047 0.015 3.2 

Armoloy of Illinois Inc. De Kalb IL CMP 0.0042 0.015 3.6 

National Chromium Co. Inc. Putnam CT CMP 0.0040 0.015 3.8 

Ultra Plating Green Bay WI CMP 0.0026 0.015 5.8 

Whyco Finishing Tech. Inc Thomaston CT CMP 0.0016 0.015 9.6 

Rock Island Arsenal Rock Island IL PBS 0.00018 0.015 84 

Rock Island Arsenal Rock Island IL PBS 0.00014 0.015 106 

Rock Island Arsenal Rock Island IL PBS 0.00014 0.015 110 

Rock Island Arsenal Rock Island IL PBS 0.00012 0.015 125 

a

 PBS = packed bed scrubber; CMP = composite mesh pad.
3 

Table 3. Comparison of Actual to Allowable Emissions for Small Hard Chromium Plants 

Emissions, mg/dscm 

Company 

 

City 

 

State 

Emission 

controla Actual Allowable 

Allowable 

to actual 

Plating Perceptions, Inc. Twinsburg OH MPME 0.017 0.030 1.8 

Dover Industrial Chicago IL WAFS 0.016 0.030 1.8 

Dover Industrial Chicago IL WAFS 0.015 0.030 2.0 

Plating Perceptions, Inc. Twinsburg OH MPME 0.015 0.030 2.0 

Economy Plating, Inc. Chicago IL CMP 0.014 0.030 2.2 

Economy Plating, Inc. Chicago IL CMP 0.010 0.030 2.9 

Economy Plating, Inc. Chicago IL CMP 0.0083 0.030 3.6 

Denver Metal Finishing Denver CO WAFS 0.0076 0.030 3.9 

Diamond Hard Chrome Cleveland IL CMP-PBS 0.0066 0.030 4.5 

Gravure Process Company Chicago IL CMP 0.0049 0.030 6.1 

Hard Chrome Enterprises, Inc. Lake Park FL CMP 0.0033 0.030 9.1 

AH Plating Burbank CA HEPA 0.00019 0.030 158 

a MPME = mesh pad mist eliminator; WAFS = wetting agent fume suppressant; CMP = composite mesh pad; 

PBS = packed bed scrubber; HEPA = high efficiency particulate air filter. 

 For large hard chromium plants (Table 2), the ratio of allowable to actual emissions 

ranges from 1.2 to 125, and for small hard chromium electroplating plants (Table 3), the ratio 

ranges from 1.8 to 158. The last line of Table 3, with shows an allowable-to-actual ratio of 158, 

is based on a test conducted in California. The source tested was equipped with a high efficiency 

particulate air (HEPA) filter and was subject to California's Airborne Toxic Control Measure 

(ATCM) for Chromium Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Facilities. For most facilities, the 

California ATCM is more stringent than the NESHAP, although a direct comparison is not 

possible because of differences in the units of the emission limits for the ATCM (milligrams per 

ampere-hour) vs. the emission limits for the NESHAP (mg/dscm). 

 Decorative Chromium Electroplating

 Table 4 summarizes the available data on chromium emissions from decorative 

chromium electroplating tanks. Most decorative chromium tanks are controlled with wetting 

agent fume suppressants (WAFS) added to the electroplating solution (bath), and compliance is 

demonstrated by monitoring the surface tension of the bath. As a result, the initial performance 

test is not required. Furthermore, tanks that are controlled with WAFS typically are not 

equipped with hoods or exhaust systems. For these reasons, there are limited emission test data 

available for decorative chromium electroplating tanks. 

 Most of the data shown in Table 4 are based on the results of a testing program conducted 

by the California Air Resources Board to evaluate WAFS. For those tests, temporary exhaust 

systems were constructed in order to capture emissions and measure chromium emission 

concentrations. Therefore, the results from those emission tests may not be representative of 

typical emission concentrations for decorative chromium electroplating tanks. For two of the 

tests conducted on tanks at Sigma Plating Company and one test at Van Nuys Plating, 

Incorporated, measured emissions exceeded the NESHAP emission limit of 0.010 mg/dscm, and 

it is assumed that the ventilation rate for the temporary exhaust system was not as high as it 
4 

should have been to allow adequate ventilation. It should be noted that the tanks were in 

compliance with the surface tension limits specified in the NESHAP and in California State 

regulations. Excluding those data for the Sigma Plating Company and Van Nuys Plating 

sources, the ratio of allowable to actual ranged from 1.4 to 86. 

. 

Table 4. Comparison of Actual to Allowable Emissions for Decorative Chromium Plants 

Emissions, mg/dscm 

 Company City State 

 Emission 

controla Actual Allowable 

Allowable 

to actual 

Sigma Plating Company, Inc.b La Puente CA WAFS 0.21 0.010 0.05 

Sigma Plating Company, Inc. b La Puente CA WAFS 0.10 0.010 0.10 

Van Nuys Plating, Incorporated b Van Nuys CA WAFS 0.017 0.010 0.6 

Clovis Specialty b Fresno CA WAFS 0.0070 0.010 1.4 

American Nickeloid Company Walnutport PA PBS 0.0065 0.010 1.5 

Sherm's Custom Plating b Sacramento CA WAFS 0.0023 0.010 4.3 

Quality Plating Company Salt Lake City UT HEPA 0.0011 0.010 9.3 

Walker's Custom Chrome b Shasta Lake CA WAFS 0.00067 0.010 15 

Sigma Plating Company, Inc. b La Puente CA MPME 0.00065 0.010 15 

Excello Plating Company, Inc. b Los Angeles CA WAFS 0.00052 0.010 19 

Alta Plating And Anodizing b Sacramento CA WAFS 0.00037 0.010 27 

Whyco Finishing Tech., Inc Thomaston CT CMP 0.00025 0.010 40 

Alta Plating And Anodizing b Sacramento CA WAFS 0.00019 0.010 51 

Anaheim Plating & Polishing Inc. Anaheim CA PBS 0.00012 0.010 86 

Alco Cad-Nickel Plating Corp. Los Angeles CA HEPA 0.00012 0.010 86 

a WAFS = wetting agent fume suppressant; PBS = packed bed scrubber; HEPA = high efficiency particulate air 

filter; MPME = mesh pad mist eliminator; CMP = composite mesh pad. 

b

 CARB Decorative Chromium Electroplating Test Program. 

III. Discussion

 Because the ratio of allowable to actual emissions varies considerably within the three 

subcategories for which data are available, it is difficult to draw conclusions or generalize about 

the compliance margin (how much under the emission limit plants operate affected tanks). The 

ranges in allowable-to-actual values appear to reflect variations in exhaust system design, 

process operations at the time the emissions tests were conducted, and variations in the 

performance of the specific types of control devices used. With respect to exhaust system 

design, emissions concentrations are greatly influenced by the ventilation rate (i.e., the amount of 

air exhausted per unit of tank surface area). Although most exhaust systems are designed for a 

standard ventilation rate, some systems may be overdesigned, resulting in lower emissions 

concentrations. Emissions are also a function of how the tank is operated during the emission 

test, which can vary by the type and amount of materials or parts being electroplated. For 

example, if the electroplating tanks were tested while operating with relatively low rectifier 

amperage, emissions would be lower than if the tank were operating with the rectifier near 

capacity. The data also show significant variations in the apparent performance of control 

devices. For example, for large hard chromium plant tanks controlled with composite mesh pad 

(CMP), the ratio of allowable to actual ranges from 1.2 to 9.6. For tanks controlled with a 

packed bed scrubber (PBS), the data for large hard chromium plants show a much wider range 
5 

(1.2 to 125). The data for small hard chromium electroplating plants and for decorative 

chromium electroplating plants show similar ranges in the ratio of allowable to actual emissions 

for the types of emission controls used. 

 A possible concern is that potentially high risk plants that are operate well below the 

emission limit could significantly increase emissions, which would result in a corresponding 

increase in risk, and still be in compliance with the emission limits. However, as summarized in 

Table 5, the limited amount of data available indicates that is not the case. For plants that have 

been identified as having high values for maximum individual risk (MIR) for cancer, the 

allowable-to-actual ratio is relatively small, ranging from 1.2 to 4.5. 

Table 5. Comparison of Actual to Allowable Emissions for High Risk Plants 

 Emissions, mg/dscm 

Company City 

 

State 

Emission 

controla Actual Allowable 

Allowable 

to actual 

MIR, per 

million 

Empire Hard Chrome Chicago IL PBS 0.013 0.015 1.2 

Empire Hard Chrome Chicago IL PBS 0.013 0.015 1.2 

40 

Denver Metal Finishing Denver CO WAFS 0.0076 0.030 3.9 30 

Dover Industrial Chicago IL WAFS 0.016 0.030 1.8 

Dover Industrial Chicago IL WAFS 0.015 0.030 2.0 

20 

Economy Plating, Inc. Chicago IL CMP 0.014 0.030 2.2 

Economy Plating, Inc. Chicago IL CMP 0.010 0.030 2.9 

Economy Plating, Inc. Chicago IL CMP 0.0083 0.030 3.6 

20 

Diamond Hard Chrome Cleveland IL CMP-PBS 0.0066 0.030 4.5 5 a

 PBS = packed bed scrubber; WAFS = wetting agent fume suppressant; CMP = composite mesh pad.

 In conclusion, the data do not demonstrate there is a typical allowable-to-actual emissions 

ratio that can be applied to chromium electroplating plants, generally or by the type of emission 

control method used. For all types of facilities and emission controls, the ratios show wide 

ranges. 

V. References

1. Facsimile from Joyce, Jackie, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 

to Richard Marinshaw, RTI International. 2007. Stack test summary and APEN 

determination, Denver Metal Finishing. July 26. 

2. Envisage Environmental Incorporated. 1998. Source Evaluation Results, No. 2 Chrome 

Scrubber Exhaust, Diamond Hard Chrome Inc., on April 21, 1998. May 6. 

3. Envisage Environmental Incorporated. 1999. Source Evaluation Results, Exhaust Stack 

of No. 3 Scrubber, Diamond Hard Chrome Inc., on November 10, 1999. November 19. 

4. Schrodt, A.G. 1995. Permit Renewal Application. Letter and attachments from Ariel G. 

Schrodt, Dover Industrial Chrome, 2929 North Campbell, Chicago, Illinois. Submitted to 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Air Pollution Control. January 

30. 
6 

5. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Operating Permit for Hard Chrome 

Electroplating Operation NESHAP Source, Economy Plating, Inc., 2350 North Elston, 

Chicago, Illinois. Division of Air Pollution Control. March 31. 

6. Economy Plating. 1998. Application for Permit, Economy Plating, Inc., 2350 North 

Elston, Chicago, Illinois. Submitted to Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 

Division of Air Pollution Control. January 29. 

7. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Lifetime Operating Permit Hard 

Chrome Electroplating Operation – NESHAP Source, Empire Hard Chrome, Inc., 

1615 South Kostner Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. Division of Air Pollution Control. 

February 18. 

8. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Lifetime Operating Permit – NESHAP 

Source, Gravure Process Company, 4179 West Belmont Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. 

Illinois EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control. February 13. 

9. Gravure Process Company. 1997. Permit Application Information. Gravure Process 

Company, 4179 West Belmont Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. Submitted to Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Air Pollution Control. April 8. 

10. California Air Resources Board. 2006. Source Test Report, Total and Hexavalent 

Chromium Emissions from Walker’s Custom Chrome Decorative Chromium Plating 

Tank, and attachments. July 5. 

11. California Air Resources Board. 2003. Decorative Chromium Plating Program Source 

Test Reports for t-03-010, Sigma Plating Company, Inc., T-03-011, Excello Plating 

Company, Inc., and T-03-019, Van Nuys Plating, Inc. August 28. 

12. California Air Resources Board. 2004. Source Test Report, Total and Hexavalent 

Chromium Emissions from Sherm’s Custom Plating Decorative Chromium Plating Tank 

and attachments. May 24. 

13. California Air Resources Board. 2006. Source Test Report, Total and Hexavalent 

Chromium Emissions Clovis Specialty Decorative Chromium Plating Tank and 

attachments. August 4. 

14. California Air Resources Board. 2004. Source Test Report, Total and Hexavalent 

Chromium Emissions Alta Plating and Anodizing Decorative Chromium Plating Tank 

and attachments. May 24. 

15. Test Report. ERD Environmental. 1997. American Nickeloid Company Chromium 

Emission Compliance Test from Plating Operations Controlled by Scrubber and Mist 

Eliminator. Prepared for American Nickeloid Company. February. 
7 

16. Test Report. Chemical Data Management. 1993. Compliance Test Results Anaheim 

Plating, Inc. March 29. 

17. Test Report. RMC Environmental. 2006. Total Chromium Emissions Report, Armoloy 

Corporation, Chrome Scrubbers #2 & #3. March 28. 

18. Test Report. RMC Environmental. 1998. Total Chromium Emissions Report for 

Chromium Plating Company, Inc. Tulsa Oklahoma. October 19. 

19. Test Report. Scientific Control Laboratories. 1997. Stack Test Analysis for Chromium 

Emissions. Prepared for Dover Industrial Chrome. August 28. 

20. Test Report. Economy Plating. 1998. Final Report of Emission Tests for Economy 

Plating. January 29. 

21. Test Report. Microbac Laboratories. 1996. Report on Emission Testing for ElectroTech, Inc. April 23. 

22. Test Report. RMC Environmental. 2005. Total Chrome Test Report for Enchro Plating, 

Inc. September 21. 

23. Test Report. Scientific Control Laboratories. 1997. Stack Test Analysis for Chromium 

Emissions from Gravure Process. July 14. 

24. Test Report. Triangle Laboratories. 1996. Chrome Emissions Test for Hard Chrome 

Enterprises. November 19. 

25. Test Report. Test Inc. 2005. Emissions Test Report Huntington Plating, Inc. Chrome 

Scrubber Stack. October 6. 

26. Test Report. Environmental Risk Limited. 1996. Summaries of Hex Chrome Test 

Results for National Chromium Company Tank EC2. December 18. 

27. Test Report. Environmental Risk Limited. 1997. Summaries of Hex Chrome Test 

Results for National Chromium Company Tank EC134. January 16. 

28. Test Report. Great Lakes Manufacturing Center. 1998. Hard Chrome Pollution 

Prevention Demonstration Project Report for Plating Perceptions, Inc. January 20. 

29. Test Report. Derenzo and Associates. 2001. Chrome NESHAP Compliance Test 

Results at PPI Aerospace Inc. September 14. 

30. Test Report. E. Roberts Alley & Associates, Inc. 1997. Chromium MACT Performance 

Test Results for Brown Printing (Quebecor World). February 5. 
8 

31. Test Report. Raymond Professional Group. 2002. Hexavalent Chromium Tests on 

Emission Points #C-7 - C-10, Rock Island Arsenal. November 6. 

32. Test Report. Ultra Plating. 1997. Stack testing for chromium emissions at Ultra Plating. 

July 17. 

33. Test Report. Rex Technical Services. 2005. Compliance Test Report Hard and 

Decorative Chrome Plating Lines, Whyco Finishing Technologies LLC. August.