Case Study # 171
1. Headline: Resource Recovery and Environmental Control in
a Nickel-Chrome Plating Industry
2. Background: See below.
3. Cleaner Technology Principle: New technology. The
technology is a Chrome-NapperTM system which circulates
rinsewater through elctrolytic cells containing an ion
transfer membrane. Low concentrations of chromium are
maintained in the rinsewater. An Aqua Napper is also used
to reclaim chrome from the drag-in/drag-out process water
and allow for countercurrent rinsing.
4. Description of Cleaner Technology Application:
Process and Waste Information: The manufacturing process
consists of two nickel-chrome plating lines. Four rinsing
tanks and a drag-out tank are followed by the chrome bath,
a drag-in tank, and five rinsing tanks in countercurrent.
Prior to the clean technology, effluents from the running
rinses on both plating lines were discharged to a
conventional chemical destruct treatment system consisting
of bisulfite reduction of chromate, ph adjustment, and the
settling of chromium (III) hydroxide and sludge disposal.
In the new process, the final rinsewater is circulated
through electrolytic cells containing a 1.2 cm thick ion
permeable membrane separating two compartments. The
membrane surrounds an inner compartment, approximately 3.4
liters in volume, in which chrome is concentrated. A
direct electric current applied across the cell
electrodes results in the chrome concentration in the
acolyte solution. Low chromium concentrations are thereby
maintained in the rinsewater and the acolyte solution is
returned to the chrome bath after reaching a predetermined
concentration. An Aqua Napper was also installed to
reclaim chrome from the drag-in/drag-out process water and
to make countercurrent rinsing possible. At full
operation, the energy requirement is about 300,000 KWH/yr.
The technology reduced the chromium concentration in the
final rinse bath from 32 mg/l to an average of 9.8 mg/l.
Further reduction to 7 mg/l may be possible since some
spills could be prevented. Chrome savings results from
use of the Aqua Napper and it was estimated that 95% of
the total chrome recovery of 210 kg/month occurs in this
system. Water consumption decreased from 173 liters/min.
to 97 liters/min. Sludge production was negligible. The
only waste produced is water from the final rinse tank.
Scale of Operation: Information was not provided on the
scale of operation although it was indicated that 320 kg
of chromium oxide flakes were used from April - September
1982.
Stage of Development: The equipment has been in operation
since 1982.
Level of Commercialization: The equipment is fully
commercially available. The supplier, Innova in
Clearwater, Florida has experience in delivering the
installation.
Material/Energy Balances and Substitutions:
Material Category Quantity Before
Quantity After
Waste Generation:
Chrome loss 210 kg/month N/A
sales
sales
Feedstock Use: N/A N/A
Water Use: 173 l/min 97
l/min Energy Use: N/A
300,000 kWh/yr
A chrome loss of 0.94 kg/$1000 sales was reported before
the new system was in place compared with 0.14 kg/$1000
loss with the new system.
5. Economics
Investment Costs: Investment and IEC Demonstration
Programme costs totalled $156,790 in 1982.
Operational & Maintenance Costs: Costs for 1982 were
reported as follows:
Labor at $9.00/hr:
Operation $1350
Maintenance $1300
Plant Overhead $1325
Materials
Membranes $3000
Demineralizer $3900
Electricity $8540
$19,415
Annual costs of the Chrome-Napper system were reported as
$30,043. An estimated $13,300/yr of chrome is recovered
from the system.
Payback Time: Conventional treatment at full operation
would cost $53,571/yr. Payback time will be approximately
5 years.
6. Advantages
Chromium losses exceeded the municipal sewer by-law limit
of 10 mg/l as a result of poor performance of the
conventional system. Rather than upgrade the chemical
destruct system, Dovercourt looked for alternative
technologies to allow chrome recovery and substantially
reduce or completely eliminate sludge disposal.
Purchases of chrome oxide (CrO3) flakes are decreased,
resulting in savings of $13,300. The new process results
in savings of $23,500 in operating costs over conventional
treatment.
In a two year period prior to installation of the system,
the sewer by-law limit was exceeded in 14 of 16 samples.
After installation, this occurred in 5 of 15 samples, all
related to specific activities in the plant and all
preventable.
7. Constraints
The Chrome-Napper must be operated using cool rinsewater.
As this gave problems with product quality, the fifth and
final rinse tank was converted into a hot running rinse
and the Chrome Napper was connected to the fourth tank.
After ten months of operation, Dovercourt was forced to
shut down one of its lines, due to build-up of unwanted
cations, preventing plating of chrome. At the time the
report was written, the cause of this phenomenon was still
unknown. The problem had not occurred in the other
plating lines to which the Chrome-Napper had been
installed, neither at Dovercourt, nor elsewhere.
8. Contacts and Citation
Evaluation of the Chrome-Napper System for Resource
Recovery and Environmental Control at Dovercourt
Electroplating Co., Ltd.
IEC Beak Consultants, Ltd.
6870 Goreway Drive, Mississauga
Ontario L4V lPl, Canada.
Industry/Program Contact and Address
Mr. M. Schulz
Head Training Section
Environment Canada
3439 River Road South
Ottawa, Ontario K1 OH3
Canada
TEL: 1 (613) 991-1954
FAX: 1 (613) 991-1635
9. Keywords: Canada, metal, electroplating, new technology,
ion exchange, membrane, ISIC 3471, nickel, chrome,
rinsing, sludge, water saving.
10. Reviewer's Comments: This case study was originally
compiled by the UNEP IE Working Group on Metal Finishing.
It underwent a UNEP IE funded technical review in 1994 for
quality and completeness. It was edited for the ICPIC
diskette in July 1995.
DOCNO: DOCUMENT NOT AVAILABLE *****10-18