Date: June 25, 2010

Subject: Actual vs. Allowable Emissions for Chromium Electroplating Plants Emission Standards Technical Suppor t 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 thos e 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 ac tual 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 (a mp-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 thes e types of plants. These emission limits apply to all existing chro mium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks.

Table 1. Chromium Electroplating NESHAP Emission Limits for Existing Sources

Process type/facility size Emission limit a
mg/dscm gr/dscf Hard chromium electroplating, large facility 0.015 6.6 x 10 -6
Hard chromium electroplati ng, 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 s ources. Data are presented for hard chromium electroplating and decorative chro mium electroplating sources; no st ack 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 fa cilities and small facilities, respectively. The data presented in the tables generally are the results of initial performance te sts. In some cases, a single electroplating tank was test ed, 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, conc entration of total ch romium emissions, the applicable emission limit (also in units of con centration), and the ratio of allowable emissions (i.e., the emission limit) to actual emissions.

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

Company City State Emission
control a Emissions, mg/dscm Allowable
to actual Actual Allowable 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 Allowabl e Emissions for Small Hard Chromium Plants

Company City State Emission
control a Emissions, mg/dscm Allowable
to actual Actual Allowable 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 allowabl e-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 Faciliti es. For most facilities, the California ATCM is more stringent than th e 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 decorativ e chromium tanks are controlled with wetting agent fume suppressants (WAFS) added to the el ectroplating 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 thes e reasons, there are limited emission test data available for decorative chromium electroplating tanks.

Most of the data shown in Table 4 are base d 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 captu re emissions and measure chromium emission concentrations. Therefore, the results from t hose emission tests may not be representative of typical emission concentrations for decorative ch romium electroplating ta nks. For two of the tests conducted on tanks at Sigma Plating Co mpany and one test at Van Nuys Plating, Incorporated, measured emissions exceeded th e 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 it4

should have been to allow adequa te ventilation. It should be noted that the tanks were in compliance with the surface tension limits speci fied in the NESHAP and in California State regulations. Excluding those data for the Si gma 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 Allowabl e Emissions for Decorative Chromium Plants

Company City State Emission
control a Emissions, mg/dscm Allowable
to actual Actual Allowable 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 em issions 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 emissi on limit plants operate affected tanks). The ranges in allowable-to-actual va lues appear to reflect variat ions 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 de vices used. With respect to exhaust system design, emissions concentrations are greatly influe nced by the ventilation ra te (i.e., the amount of air exhausted per unit of tank su rface 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 test ed while operating with relatively low rectifier amperage, emissions would be lower than if th e tank were operating w ith the rectifier near capacity. The data also show significant varia tions in the apparent performance of control devices. For example, for large hard chromium plant tanks contro lled 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 ha rd chromium plants show a much wider range5

(1.2 to 125). The data for small hard chromi um 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 pot entially high risk plants that are operate well below the emission limit could significantly increase em issions, 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 relati vely small, ranging from 1.2 to 4.5.

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

Company City State Emission
control a Emissions, mg/dscm Allowable
to actual MIR, per million Actual Allowable Empire Hard Chrome Chicago IL PBS 0.013 0.015 1.2 40 Empire Hard Chrome Chicago IL PBS 0.013 0.015 1.2 Denver Metal Finishing Denver CO WAFS 0.0076 0.030 3.9 30

Dover Industrial Chicago IL WAFS 0.016 0.030 1.8 20 Dover Industrial Chicago IL WAFS 0.015 0.030 2.0 Economy Plating, Inc. Chicago IL CMP 0.014 0.030 2.2
20 Economy Plating, Inc. Chicago IL CMP 0.010 0.030 2.9 Economy Plating, Inc. Chicago IL CMP 0.0083 0.030 3.6

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 th ere is a typical allowa ble-to-actual emissions ratio that can be applied to chromium electropla ting plants, generally or by the type of emission control method used. For all types of facilitie s and emission controls, the ratios show wide

ranges.

V. References

1. Facsimile from Joyce, Jackie, Colorado Depart ment of Public Hea lth and Environment, to Richard Marinshaw, RTI International. 2007. Stack test summary and APEN determination, Denver Meta l 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 Applicati on. Letter and attachments from Ariel G. Schrodt, Dover Industrial Chrome, 2929 North Campbell, Chicago, Illinois. Submitted to Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Di vision 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 Il linois Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Air Pollution Control. January 29.

7. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Lifetime Operating Permit Hard Chrome Electroplating Oper ation – NESHAP Source, Em pire 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 Co mpany, 4179 West Belmont Ave nue, Chicago, Illinois. Illinois EPA, Division of Air Po llution Control. February 13.

9. Gravure Process Company. 1997. Permit App lication Information. Gravure Process Company, 4179 West Belmont Avenue, Chi cago, Illinois. Submitted to Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Air Pollution Control. April 8.

10. California Air Resources Board. 2006. Sour ce 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. Sour ce 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. Sour ce Test Report, Total and Hexavalent Chromium Emissions Clovis Specialty D ecorative Chromium Plating Tank and attachments. August 4.

14. California Air Resources Board. 2004. Sour ce Test Report, Total and Hexavalent Chromium Emissions Alta Pl ating and Anodizing Decorati ve Chromium Plating Tank and attachments. May 24.

15. Test Report. ERD Environmental. 1997. American Nickeloid Company Chromium Emission Compliance Test from Plating Oper ations Controlled by Scrubber and Mist Eliminator. Prepared for Ameri can 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 Scr ubbers #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. Fina l Report of Emission Tests for Economy Plating. January 29.

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

22. Test Report. RMC Environmental. 2005. To tal 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 Laborat ories. 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 Limite d. 1996. Summaries of Hex Chrome Test Results for National Chromium Company Tank EC2. December 18.

27. Test Report. Environmental Risk Limite d. 1997. Summaries of Hex Chrome Test Results for National Chromium Company Tank EC134. January 16.

28. Test Report. Great Lakes Manufacturi ng 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 & Associat es, 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 testi ng 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 T echnologies LLC. August.