Chromium-6 in coatings: who does what in analysis, control and removal?

When an industrial coating may contain Chromium-6, the first challenge is not immediately selecting a removal tool. The project must first establish what is present, where it is present, what may be released during the planned work and how that release can be controlled.

These questions are answered by different parties. The asset owner provides information about the structure and initiates the investigation. A competent sampling and laboratory specialist determines what is present in representative coating samples. The employer assesses the risks to workers, supported where necessary by an occupational hygienist. The contractor translates the findings into a practical work method. Technology suppliers can advise on suitable equipment, while waste specialists manage the resulting contaminated material.

Safe Chromium-6 coating removal therefore depends on a connected chain of responsibilities rather than one company or one laboratory report.

The central principle is simple: investigation establishes what is present, risk assessment determines what the work may release, and the control plan defines how the coating can be removed safely and responsibly.

This article describes the general European framework for managing Chromium-6 in coatings. European occupational safety directives establish minimum requirements, but they are implemented through national legislation. Exposure limits, notification requirements, accepted measurement methods and enforcement procedures may therefore differ between countries. Project teams must always verify the rules that apply in the country where the work is performed.

Why clear responsibilities are essential in Chromium-6 projects

A Chromium-6 project can become difficult when research, risk assessment and execution are treated as the same activity.

A laboratory can establish whether Chromium-6 was detected in a submitted sample. It cannot determine independently whether an entire asset contains the same coating, how much hazardous material will become airborne during removal or which work method is best for the project.

Similarly, a contractor may understand how to prepare a steel surface but cannot base the work solely on assumptions about the coating composition. The asset owner may know the maintenance history but may not have the expertise to design a sampling strategy or exposure assessment.

The responsibilities therefore have to connect. The investigation must provide useful information for the risk assessment. The risk assessment must support the selection of the removal method. The chosen method must then be translated into a workable control plan for the people carrying out the task.

Across the European Union, the employer is responsible for protecting workers’ safety and health, assessing occupational risks and organising the necessary preventive measures. For activities involving carcinogenic substances, the European Carcinogens, Mutagens and Reprotoxic Substances Directive introduces additional minimum requirements for assessing and reducing exposure. The client or asset owner should ensure that relevant asset information and project interfaces are clearly defined, while the precise legal and contractual responsibilities must be determined under the national law of the country where the work is performed.

The asset owner starts with the available coating information

The asset owner, client or facility operator will normally initiate the process. This party usually has the best access to the object’s history, previous maintenance activities and original coating specifications.

The first step is to establish whether reliable information already exists. Historical coating schedules, safety data sheets, maintenance records, inspection reports and previous laboratory results may help identify potentially affected areas. However, old records are not always complete. Local repairs, overcoating and coating replacement can result in different systems being present on the same structure.

The asset owner should therefore define the work area and make all available information accessible to the researchers, HSE specialists and contractors involved. When documentation is incomplete, a research strategy is needed before disruptive activities such as blasting, grinding or sanding begin.

The asset owner does not necessarily carry out the research or exposure assessment. Its main responsibility at this stage is to ensure that the relevant questions are investigated and that the results are transferred to the parties preparing the work.

A competent research specialist develops the sampling strategy

The next responsibility lies with a competent research or sampling specialist. This may be an independent investigation company, materials specialist, occupational-hygiene consultancy or trained coating inspector.

The purpose of the sampling strategy is not merely to collect a piece of paint. It must establish which locations and coating layers are representative of the planned work.

A large industrial structure may contain several coating systems. Different application dates, repairs, environmental exposure and maintenance histories can create significant variation. A single negative sample therefore cannot automatically be used to declare an entire tank, bridge, vessel or installation free from Chromium-6.

The sampling specialist should determine where samples are required, how they will be collected safely and how they will remain traceable from the structure to the laboratory report. Sample identification, location records, packaging and chain of custody are essential because the analytical result is only useful when it can be linked to the correct asset section.

A specialist company such as SEEF can be involved in this part of the process by combining on-site investigation, sampling and laboratory analysis. SEEF is one example; other competent and suitably qualified research organisations can provide the same project role.

The sampling and analytical strategy should be technically justified and appropriate for the coating system and material matrix being investigated. It should define the sampling locations, analytical parameter, reporting limit, quality controls and method limitations. Screening techniques should not be treated as conclusive unless their suitability for the specific coating and research question has been established. Applicable national requirements, recognised standards and the laboratory’s quality procedures should be checked before the investigation begins.

The laboratory determines what is present in the sample

Once the samples have been collected, a competent laboratory determines what is present in the submitted material.

The laboratory report should clearly state what was measured. This is important because total chromium is not the same as Chromium-6. A total-chromium analysis measures chromium in different chemical forms together. It does not automatically establish how much of that chromium is present in the hexavalent form.

A useful laboratory report identifies the sample, the analysed parameter, the method, the reporting limit and any relevant uncertainty or limitations. The result must then be considered in relation to the sampling strategy.

A positive result shows that Chromium-6 was detected in the analysed sample. A negative result means that it was not detected above the reporting limit in that particular sample. It does not prove that every coating layer or unsampled part of the asset is free from Chromium-6.

The laboratory’s responsibility ends with accurate analysis and clear reporting. It does not independently select the removal method, prepare the contractor’s work plan or take over the employer’s responsibility for worker safety.

Who interprets the laboratory results?

The analytical result must be interpreted by someone who understands both the investigation and the intended work.

Depending on the project, this may be a materials specialist, occupational hygienist, coating specialist or HSE adviser. The interpretation should consider whether the sampled areas are representative, whether multiple coating layers are present and whether additional investigation is needed.

This step also prevents two common misunderstandings.

First, material analysis and exposure assessment are not the same. Material analysis identifies what is present in the coating. Exposure assessment examines what may reach workers during a particular activity.

Second, the amount of Chromium-6 in a coating does not directly predict the airborne concentration during removal. Release is influenced by the work method, duration, ventilation, geometry, surface condition and effectiveness of the control measures.

The interpretation therefore connects the laboratory phase to the practical risk assessment.

The employer assesses the exposure risk

The employer of the people performing the work is responsible for assessing and controlling their exposure risk. An occupational hygienist or another competent specialist can support this process.

The assessment considers how the planned activity may disturb the coating and how employees or other people in the area could come into contact with the released material. Open abrasive blasting, local grinding, water jetting and closed-loop vacuum blasting all create different release patterns and therefore require different controls.

The assessment must also take account of the work environment. A task on an isolated outdoor structure is not identical to the same task in an enclosed plant room. Access, ventilation, task duration, concurrent work and the potential transfer of contamination through tools or clothing all affect the final control strategy.

Under the European Carcinogens, Mutagens and Reprotoxic Substances Directive, the employer must determine the nature, degree and duration of potential exposure and use this information to define preventive measures. Where technically possible, substitution should be considered. Where substitution is not possible, the work should be performed in a closed system where technically feasible. If a closed system cannot be used, exposure must be reduced to as low a level as is technically possible. Source control and collective protection should therefore be considered before relying on individual protective equipment.

The outcome should be a task-specific risk assessment rather than a general statement that the coating contains Chromium-6.

Aanmelden nieuwsbrief

Inschrijven voor onze nieuwsbrief?

Nee, geen wekelijks nieuwsbrief met veel te veel informatie. Wel maandelijks waardelijkse informatie over onze producten & diensten.

Who decides how the coating will be removed?

The removal method should be selected jointly by parties with knowledge of the asset, the exposure risk, the required surface condition and the practical execution.

The asset owner defines the technical result the project must achieve. The coating or corrosion specialist determines what surface cleanliness and profile are required for the replacement coating. The employer and HSE team assess the safety implications. The contractor evaluates practical feasibility. When specialised equipment is considered, the technology supplier can advise on the capabilities and limitations of that equipment.

No removal method is suitable for every situation.

Open abrasive blasting can prepare large areas efficiently, but it may generate substantial quantities of dust, removed coating and spent abrasive. Full containment can restrict the spread but creates a controlled contaminated work area that still requires ventilation, access procedures, cleaning and waste handling.

Sanding and grinding may be appropriate for small areas or complex details, although their performance depends on tool extraction and operator technique. Water jetting can reduce dry dust but creates contaminated water and sludge. Chemical or thermal methods introduce their own exposure, waste and process considerations.

The correct decision therefore depends on the complete project, not only on removal speed.

The technology supplier advises on technical source control

When closed-loop vacuum blasting is being considered, Pinovo’s role is to provide the relevant technology and application knowledge.

Pinovo develops vacuum blasting systems that combine abrasive blasting with the immediate recovery of abrasive, dust and removed coating material. By capturing this material at the point of contact, the system can help reduce its spread into the surrounding work area.

Pinovo can advise on the appropriate machine, tool, adapter and operating conditions for the geometry being treated. It can also provide equipment training and technical guidance on inspection and maintenance.

However, Pinovo does not take over the role of the asset owner, employer, occupational hygienist or executing contractor. The system’s suitability must still be assessed for the particular coating, surface, access conditions and required preparation standard. The contractor remains responsible for applying the equipment correctly on site.

Independent or specialist testing can help support a technology’s use within defined conditions. Pinovo has published a SEEF Works validation statement relating to a specified Chromium-6 vacuum-blasting test configuration. Such results provide supporting evidence for the tested setup but should not be interpreted as a universal guarantee for every project.

The contractor turns the assessment into a work plan

The executing contractor is responsible for translating the available information into a practical method statement.

The contractor should not be asked to discover the coating risk while the work is already in progress. Before mobilisation, it should receive the research report, relevant drawings, risk assessment, required surface standard and agreed control principles.

The work plan describes how the area will be organised, which equipment will be used, how the equipment will be inspected and what will happen if conditions differ from the assumptions. It should also define access restrictions, hygiene arrangements, cleaning methods, waste collection and the responsibilities of supervisors and subcontractors.

Personal protective equipment may form part of this plan, but it is only one element. The plan should primarily demonstrate how the chosen method controls release, spread and secondary contamination.

The contractor must ensure that operators are competent to use the selected equipment and understand the specific hazards associated with the coating.

Who is responsible while the work is being performed?

During execution, responsibility moves to the contractor’s operational team and supervision.

The supervisor verifies that the agreed work method is followed and that the conditions still correspond with the risk assessment. Equipment condition, extraction performance, sealing, filter status and housekeeping must be checked throughout the work.

Unexpected conditions require a defined response. If another coating layer is found, the vacuum system loses performance or material begins to escape beyond the controlled area, the project must have clear stop-work criteria. The authority to suspend the task should be assigned before the work begins.

The asset owner and HSE representatives may monitor the project, but daily control of the work remains with the contractor and the employer of the workers involved.

Verification shows whether the measures actually work

Control measures cannot be judged solely by their presence in the work plan. Their performance must also be verified in practice.

Verification may include equipment inspections, observations of the work method, personal exposure measurements, area measurements or surface checks. The extent of the verification depends on the risk assessment, available evidence and similarity between the actual work and previously tested conditions.

An occupational hygienist or specialist measurement company interprets these results. A measurement is only meaningful when it is linked to the task, duration, work conditions and equipment configuration under which it was collected.

When the work changes, the previous evidence may no longer be representative. A different tool, geometry, operator method or ventilation condition can justify additional verification.

Cleaning, waste management and release are separate responsibilities

Removing the coating does not complete the project. The collected coating debris, used abrasive, filters, disposable protective materials and cleaning waste may require controlled handling as contaminated waste.

The project should determine in advance which party is responsible for collection, packaging, temporary storage, transport documentation and final processing. The executing contractor often collects and packages the material, but the formal waste responsibility may sit elsewhere depending on the contract and applicable rules.

A qualified waste specialist should determine the appropriate classification and disposal route. Within the European Union, waste classification and handling are governed by European waste legislation together with the applicable national rules. Where waste is transported between countries, Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 establishes procedures and control regimes for waste shipments based on the origin, destination, type of waste and intended treatment. The responsible parties should confirm the applicable documentation and notification requirements before transport is arranged. This cannot always be derived directly from the coating-analysis result because the final waste stream may contain abrasive, dust, filters and other materials.

The work area should only be released when the agreed cleaning and release criteria have been met. The responsible person may be an HSE representative, occupational hygienist, specialist measurement company or another competent party appointed in the project plan.

Responsibility matrix for Chromium-6 coating projects

The precise allocation varies by contract, employment relationship and location. The following matrix provides a practical starting point.

Common gaps between the project phases

Projects most often encounter problems when responsibilities are not transferred correctly. Typical examples are starting work before the analysis is complete, applying one sample result to an entire heterogeneous structure, confusing material concentration with employee exposure, selecting the removal method without input from the contractor or failing to include cleaning and waste handling in the project scope.

Another common error is assigning too much responsibility to one specialist. A laboratory does not design the complete work method. A technology supplier does not become the executing contractor. A contractor cannot replace the asset owner’s historical information or the employer’s exposure assessment.

What should be established before work begins?

Before mobilisation, the project team should be able to confirm:

• What is known about the coating system and where uncertainty remains
• Whether the sampling programme represents the actual work area
• What the analytical results mean for the planned activities
• Who owns the exposure assessment and control plan
• Which removal method and equipment will be used
• How performance will be verified
• How cleaning, waste processing and release will be organised
• Who has authority to stop and restart the work

These questions create a clear line from investigation to execution. When any of them remain unanswered, the project is not yet fully prepared.

So, a controlled Chromium-6 project depends on clear responsibilities

Managing Chromium-6 in coatings requires clear cooperation between the asset owner, research specialists, employer, contractor and other expert parties involved in the project.

The asset owner provides the available coating and maintenance information, competent specialists carry out the required investigation and risk assessment, and the contractor translates the findings into a controlled work method. Technology suppliers and measurement specialists can support the process with technical knowledge, equipment and verification, while each party remains responsible for its own role. The precise legal duties, exposure limits and procedural requirements must also be verified under the national legislation of the country in which the project is carried out.

By defining responsibilities, information requirements, control measures and verification criteria before work begins, organisations can reduce uncertainty, limit the spread of contamination and create a safer and more predictable coating-removal project.

Schedule an appointment?

Have a question or need technical advice? Fill in our contact form and find out how Pinovo will work with you to provide the best solution for your specific challenge

First name and surname(Required)

E-mail address(Required)

Telephonenumber

How can we help you?(Required)

Send

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.