CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Auditorium, First Floor
400 "P" Street
November 9, 1989
89-19-1 Status Report on Diesel Fuel Regulations ---
89-19-2 Public Meeting to Consider the Results of 001
the Chrome Plating Control Demonstration Project.
89-19-3 Presentation on the Report of the Advisory 032
Board on Air Quality and Fuels (AB 234).
89-19-4 Consideration of Research Proposals: 072
Proposal Number 1700-151, entitled, "Regulatory
Strategies for Emissions from Selected Off-Road Mobile
Source," submitted by Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc., for
a total amount not to exceed $245,624.
Proposal Number 1696-151, entitled "Measurement of
Ambient Concentrations of Chlorinated Dioxins and
Furans and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons," submitted
by ENSR Consulting and Engineering, for a total amount
not to exceed $218,162.
Proposal Number 1705-151, entitled "Development of an
Improved Source Sampling Method for Polycyclic Aromatic
Compounds and Other Semi-Volatile Organic Species,"
submitted by the California Department of Health
Services, for a total amount not to exceed $192,959.
Proposal Number 1679-146, entitled "Development of
Laser Diagnostic Methods for PAH, PCDD and PCDF,"
submitted by the University of California, Davis, for a
total amount not to exceed $59,941.
Proposal Number 1694-151, entitled "An Investigation of
Error Propagation in the California Air Resources
Board's Airshed Model," submitted by Professors
Armistead G. Russell and Gregory J. McRae, for a total
amount not to exceed $108,300.
Proposal Number 1704-151, entitled "Development and
Application of an Up-To-Date Photochemical Mechanism
for Airshed Modeling and Reactivity Assessments,"
submitted by the university of California, riverside,
for a total amount not to exceed $99,559.
89-19-4 Consideration of Research Proposals (cont.): 072
Proposal Number 1707-151, entitled "Vehicle Monitoring
to Characterize Los Angeles Fleet Near Areas Having
High Carbon Monoxide Concentrations," submitted by AV
Projects Inc. for a total amount not to exceed $50,000.
Proposal Number 1703-151, entitled "Are Mucin and Mucin
RNA Reliable Markers for Hyper-secretion in Humans with
Irritant-Induced Bronchitis?" submitted by the
University of California, San Francisco, for a total
amount not to exceed $59,854.
Proposal Number 1706-151, entitled "Comparison of Young
Adult Male and Female Responses to Ozone Inhalation
Consequent to Continuous Exercise at the Sam Absolute
and Relative Minute Ventilation," submitted by the
university of California, Davis, for a total amount not
to exceed $35,614.
Proposal Number 1702-151, entitled "Sierra Ozone Impact
Assessment Study," submitted by the university of
California, Davis, for a total amount not to exceed
Proposal Number 185-34, entitled "Clinical Pilot Study
to Develop Sensitive Markers for Detecting the health
Effects of Acidic Atmospheres," submitted by C-E
Environmental, Inc., for a total amount not to exceed
Proposal Number 204-35, entitled "Investigation of the
Effects of Atmospheric Acidity Upon Economically
Significant Materials," submitted by the university of
Southern California, for a total amount not to exceed
Report on the Chrome Plating Control Demonstration Project.
The staff recommends that the Board not change the existing
emission control requirement for large chrome plating and chromic
acid anodizing facilities.
In February 1988, the Board adopted an airborne toxic control
measure for emissions of hexevalent chromium from chrome plating
and chromic acid anodizing operations. The measure included the
requirement that facilities emitting more than 10 lb/year of
hexavalent chromium meet either an emission limit of 0.006
milligram hexavalent chromium/Amp-hour of plating, or a control
efficiency of greater than 99.8 percent across a control device.
These levels of control had not been attempted or achieved before
in the metal finishing industry, but had been judged technically
feasible by staff based on the performance of control equipment
in other industries and potential emission reduction techniques
available for chrome plating and anodizing. The measure allows
an extended compliance time (4 years from date of district
adoption) for the requirement to allow for control technology
transfer or development to meet the requirement.
At the February 1988 Board hearing, the Metal finishing
Association of Southern California expressed concern over the
proposed requirement of 0.006 mg/Amp-hr mass limit or 99.8
percent control, because neither had been demonstrated to be
achievable in the plating industry. The association offered to
carry out a project to demonstrate, or assess, the achievability
of the requirement. The Board directed staff to participate in
The Association, through its technical consultant, planned and
carried out the project in consultation with ARB staff and staff
from the South Coast, Bay Area, and San Diego air districts.
Changes to the plating process, or process modifications, were
emphasized in the demonstration project as a pollution prevention
strategy in order to achieve the lowest emission rate. Four
control devices were selected for testing at three hard chrome
plating facilities that were typical of those subject to the
requirement for large shops. The four devices were tested in
conjunction with process modifications; in addition, two were
tested without process modifications. ARB staff performed 14
source tests: twelve on the four process modification/control
device systems and two on control devices only. The tests were
conducted in accordance with a modified version of ARB Method
425, which was developed in conjunction with the project
participants. A detailed test report was prepared by staff and
reviewed by the project participants.
The requirement of the toxic control measure was met in all
tests. For the 12 tests of process modification/control device
systems, emissions of hexavalent chromium were less than the
0.006 mg/Amp-hr limit. Emission rates as low as 0.001
mg/Amp-hour were measures. In tests of control devices only,
99.9 percent control efficiency across the device was measured in
both cases. For the two devices that were tested both with and
without process modifications, emission rates with process
modifications were about one-half of those where only a control
device was used.
In addition to evaluating the test results, staff estimated the
capital costs of the control devices and process modifications
evaluated as part of the project. These cost estimates were
approximately the same as those predicted when the measure was
The results of the project demonstrate that both options of the
requirement for large shops can be achieved. Consequently, there
is no reason to change the requirement.
Also, based on testing done by staff, the use of process
modifications to reduce emissions at the plating tank itself
prior to controlling stack emissions is more effective at
reducing emissions than exclusive use of one of these methods.