Plating Resources, Inc. has been heavily involved in the fight to preserve the hexavalent hard chrome industry because it is vital to America’s economy, defense, and even Her sovereignty.
However, the regulators and environmental extremists continue trying to destroy this industry with ridiculous claims about the supposed harm it causes to workers and the environment.
Certain chemical suppliers want to eliminate Hex-Cr plating because there is more profit in the various replacement processes. This certainly is the case for the trivalent chrome baths because Hex-Cr uses relatively inexpensive chemicals.
In fact, Hex-Cr is likely the least expensive plating process available, while Tri-Cr is much more costly to use. Hex-Cr is also an easier process to control, and it generates significantly fewer hazardous waste products.
In essence, it is much more practical and safer for the environment than using a Tri-Cr process would be.
Hex Vs. Tri Hard Chrome Comparison
Eric Svenson Sr.In June, we made a presentation at the Sur/Fin-2023 technical conference and provided an unbiased comparison of the hexavalent vs. trivalent processes. This involved all aspects for consideration, including the deposit properties, bath chemistry, operating conditions, substrate activation, analytical control, impurity effects, bath life, waste generation, the required floorspace, and the costing.
Frankly, we were surprised that the NASF allowed us to make this presentation because of the strong influence the trivalent suppliers have on the association. The takeaway from this was that the trivalent hard chrome processes are overly expensive, difficult to control, and require a lot more tanks and floor space, but most importantly, they create considerably more hazardous waste products than the Hex-Cr process does.
Our presentation was very well received, with comments like it was timely and informative, and it disclosed a lot of information that was previously unknown and not provided by the trivalent suppliers.
One of the points made in our presentation was the absence of a side-by-side CAPEX, and OPEX cost comparison because the trivalent suppliers have not responded to our request for information. The trivalent processes are known to be significantly more expensive to procure and operate; we just do not know the magnitude of this difference.
Atotech’s business development manager — who happened to be the session moderator — approached us afterward and indicated they would provide us with additional data so we could keep the hard chrome platers updated with accurate information.
Is trivalent hard chrome so overly expensive and complicated that nobody would willingly adopt it, and is the end game to have the government force us to use it by regulation?
However, after several requests, all that was provided was a marketing brochure. We never received any technical data or the cost of their process. Therefore, they did not update us with this critical information so the plating industry could make their own judgment about the overall Tri-Cr process viability.
This begs the question: Is trivalent hard chrome so overly expensive and complicated that nobody would willingly adopt it, and is the end game to have the government force us to use it by regulation? Ironically, we suspect the large chemical suppliers were involved with the EPA lobbying efforts in the hope of banning Hex-Cr.
How can you help the environment by using a process that generates more waste products and actually harms the environment?
Sustainable Hexavalent Hard Chrome
Hex-Hard Chrome is now truly sustainable and completely safe for the workers and the environment. There is no need to further restrict its use or force the industry to use a more expensive replacement process that is more difficult to control and generates excessive hazardous waste products. And none of these replacements provide the same desirable deposit properties that Hex-Cr does.
Instead of banning and replacing Hex-Cr, the industry could easily adopt the ‘7 Steps’ needed for sustainability. While some of these are proprietary, they involve specially designed ventilation, agitation, and recovery systems along with the use of the unique Triple Catalyst Bath that generates less chrome misting.
Yet we fear the EPA and environmental extremists will ignore the sustainability of Hex-hard chrome in their push for further regulatory suppression and destroy our industry and economy in the process.
This claim of sustainability is based on a system we developed in 2021 that was tested by an EPA-approved laboratory. The results were truly remarkable, especially considering the operation was plating at 20,000 DC amperes.
- Hex-Cr Discharged to the Airstream: Zero
- Hex-Cr Waste Generated: Zero
- Hex-Cr Soil Contamination: Zero
- Chemical Recovery and Reuse: 100%
- Operator Hex-Cr Breathing Air: 55 – 156 times below OSHA safe PEL
- Chrome Shop Hoods and Bussing: Stayed clean of chrome misting
All of this without the need for:
- A fume suppressant
- Waste treatment equipment
- Expensive recovery gadgets
Yet we fear the EPA and environmental extremists will ignore the sustainability of Hex-hard chrome in their push for further regulatory suppression and destroy our industry and economy in the process. They seem determined to eliminate Hex-Cr, regardless of the consequences, while ignoring its importance and its ability to be used safely without harming the environment.
Many in our profession feel the EPA needs to face reality about applying Hex-Cr properly and manage their directives accordingly. This simple action would actually help our nation as opposed to destroying a viable industry.
Eric Svenson Sr., Master CEF, is CEO of Plating Resources, Inc. Please contact the author by email at PlatingResources@yahoo.com or www.Plating.com with any comments or questions on this information. Visit www.Plating.com for a copy of the Sur/Fin-23 ‘Hexavalent vs. Trivalent Hard Chromium Plating Process comparison.’
