United States
                         Environmental Protection
                         Agency
                         Research and Development
           Risk Reduction
           Engineering Laboratory
           Cincinnati, OH 45268
           EPA/600/S-92/041   Oct. 1992
                          ENVIRONMENTAL
                          RESEARCH   BRIEF
                      Waste Reduction Activities and Options for a
                           Manufacturer of Writing Instruments

                                   Patrick Eyraud and Daniel J. Watts*
Abstract
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funded a project
with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and
Energy (NJDEPE) to assist in conducting waste minimization as-
sessments at 30 small- to medium-sized businesses in the state of
New Jersey. One of the sites selected was a facility that manufac-
tures writing instruments. A site visit was made in 1990 during which
several opportunities for waste minimizatbn were identified. These
opportunities include reformulation of ink, reuse of rinse waters,
changes in scheduling  of ink production runs, and  changes in
degreasing techniques. Implementation of the identified waste mini-
mization opportunities was not part of the program. Percent waste
reduction,  net annual savings, implementation costs and payback
periods were estimated.

This Research Brief was developed by the Principal Investigators
and EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory in Cincinnati,
OH, to announce key findings of this completed assessment.


Introduction
The environmental issues facing industry today have expanded
considerably beyond  traditional  concerns.  Wastewater, air
emissions, potential soil and groundwater contamination, solid
waste disposal, and employee health and safety have become
increasingly important concerns. The management and disposal
of hazardous substances, including both process-related wastes
and residues from waste treatment, receive significant attention
because of regulation and economics.

As environmental issues have become  more complex, the
strategies for waste management and control have become
more systematic  and  integrated.  The  positive role of waste
minimization and pollution prevention within industrial opera-
tions at each stage of product life is recognized throughout the
world. An ideal goal is to manufacture products while generat-
ing the least amount of waste possible.

The Hazardous Waste Advisement Program (HWAP) of the Divi-
sion of Hazardous Waste Management, NJDEPE, is pursuing the
goals of waste minimizatbn awareness and program implementa-
tion in the state. HWAP, with the help of an EPA grant from the Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory, conducted an Assessment of
Reduction and Recycling Opportunities for Hazardous Waste (AR-
ROW) project. ARROW was designed to assess waste minimization
potential across a broad  range of New Jersey industries. The
project targeted 30 sites to perform waste minimization assess-
ments following the approach outlined in EPA's Waste Minimization
Opportunity Assessment Manual (EPA/625/7-88/003). Under con-
tract to NJDEPE, the Hazardous Substance Management Research
Center at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) assisted in
conducting the assessments. This research brief presents an as-
sessment of a writing instruments manufacturer (1 of the 30 as-
sessments performed) and provides recommendations for waste
minimization options resulting from the assessment.


Methodology of Assessments
The assessment process was coordinated by a team of techni-
cal staff from  NJIT with experience in process operations,
basic chemistry, and environmental concerns and needs. Be-
cause the EPA waste minimization manual is designed to be
primarily applied by the inhouse staff of the facility, the degree
of involvement of the NJIT team varied according to the ease
with which the facility staff  could apply the manual. In some
cases, NJIT's  role  was to  provide advice. In  others, NJIT
conducted essentially the entire evaluation.
* New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102
                                                                                 Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
 The goal of the project was to encourage participation  in the
 assessment process by management and staff at the facility.
 To do this, the participants were encouraged to proceed through
 the organizational steps outlined in the manual. These steps
 can be summarized as follows:

    • Obtaining corporate commitment to a waste minimization
     initiative
    • Organizing a task force or similar group to carry out the
     assessment
    • Developing a policy statement regarding waste minimiza-
     tion for issuance by corporate management
    • Establishing tentative waste reduction goals to be achieved
     by the program
    • Identifying waste-generating sites and processes
    • Conducting a detailed site inspection
    • Developing a list of options which  may lead to the waste
     reduction goal
    • Formally analyzing the feasibility of the various options
    • Measuring the effectiveness of the options and continuing
     the assessment.

 Not every facility was able to follow these steps as presented.
 In  each case,  however, the identification of waste-generating
 sites and processes, detailed site inspections, and development
 of  options was carried out. Frequently,  it was necessary for a
 high degree of involvement by NJIT to accomplish these steps.
 Two common reasons for needing outside  participation were a
 shortage  of technical staff within the company and a need to
 develop an agenda for technical action before corporate com-
 mitment and policy statements could be obtained.

 It was not a goal of the ARROW project to participate in  the
 feasibility analysis or implementation steps. However,  NJIT
 offered to provide advice for feasibility analysis  if requested.

 In each case, the NJIT team made several site visits to the facility.
 Initially, visits were made to explain the EPA manual and to encourage
 the facility through the organizational stages. If delays and compli-
 cations  developed, the team offered assistance  in the technical
 review, inspections, and option development.


 The Writing Instruments Manufacturer
 The facility is an integrated manufacturer of writing instruments.
 The process used  involves fabrication of plastic components
 usually prepared by injection molding, and assembly of the
 components  including  metal components which are generally
 produced offsite. Many of the writing  instruments are filled with
 ink at the facility prior to shipment to the users.

 There are four  major  production  areas  at  this facility, all of
 which  play  an important  role  in  the production of the final
 product. One area  consists of  an injection  molding operation
 where the writing instrument bodies are created from  melted
 plastic pellets. The major waste stream from this operation is
 the plastic fragments which are snapped off from the  writing
 instruments bodies after formation. These materials are usually
 picked up by a broker for reuse.

 The second area is the assembly area where components of
the writing instruments are assembled. There is  very  little
waste from this  area except for degreasing and acid wastes
which are generated when etching  the components.  Some
degreasing steps with chlorinated solvents are used to facilitate
connections between the metal and plastic components. Some
 of the stainless steel components are pickled and have parts
 numbers etched on.  This produces an acid waste stream.

 The third  area  is the ink production area where pigments  and
 additives are mixed with solvent in large tanks according to specifi-
 cation to produce the colors and consistencies of ink required. Both
 solvent-based and water-based inks are produced. The company is
 moving in the direction of more water-based inks.

 The fourth area is the ink filling area, where the ink is put into the
 writing instruments. Typically  this is accomplished with metering
 pumps. The pumps and the attendant tubing  need to be cleaned
 between runs to  prevent  cross-contamination.  The filled writing
 instruments are packaged and shipped to customers. Some of the
 writing instruments are  shipped  without  ink.  Ink  is also sold in
 containers  to previous purchasers of the instruments.

 The company  has already  identified  and  established some
 positive pollution  prevention initiatives. The increased  use of
 water-based  inks  to  replace  solvent-based  inks  is a  good
 example of this.  There is also a research and development
 program to find an alternative to heavy metal containing dyes.
 This effort is limited by the relatively poor availability of substi-
 tute colorants without heavy  metal contents.


 Waste Streams and Existing Waste
 Management
 Ten individual waste streams were identified from the manufacturing
 operatbns. A rinsing wastewater stream results primarily from rinsing
 procedures in the ink manufacturing room. These procedures include
 rinsing of mixing tanks and filtration units. In  addition, rinses from
 cleaning the ink transfer containers and pumps also enter the waste
 stream. There is also  a contribution from the rinsing of chromium
 plated tips  used in assembly of the writing  instruments. About
 30,000 gal  of this wastestream are generated annually. The major
 component of environmental concern is chromium, although  the
 formulated  inks contain other heavy metals that would also cause
 concern. The wastestream  is  sent to a commercial wastewater
 treatment facility.

 A water-based  waste ink stream consists largely of material
 from flushing of ink pumps used in filling operations and from
 off-specification materials  being scrapped. The stream also
 contains residues from laboratory testing.  The  component of
 environmental concern in this stream is chromium, although
 other heavy metals used in ink formulation may also be in the
 waste stream. The annual volume of this stream is about  800
 gal, which  is sent to a commercial treatment facility.

 A flammable waste ink stream  is similar to the water-based
 stream described above except  that it is composed of organic
 solvents. The annual volume  of this waste stream is about 200
 gal, which  is sent to a commercial treatment facility and usually
 incinerated. The major component of environmental concern is
 acetone  and related organic solvents.

 An ink spill solids stream has an annual  volume  of  about
 12,000 Ib.  It consists primarily  of  residues  from cleanup of
 manufacturing equipment and ink dispersing equipment as well
 as  some off-specification product.  It also contains  residues
from  spills  including  adsorbent  materials  used to  facilitate
cleanups. The  major components of environmental concern
are heavy metals, particularly chromium. The stream is sent to
a commercial treatment facility where  it undergoes solidifica-
tion, stabilization, or fixation procedures prior to landfilling.

-------
 A solvent-based ink spill solids stream is similar to the preced-
 ing stream except that it involves solvent-based inks. Approxi-
 mately 1500 Ib of this material  are generated annually.  It is
 sent offsite for treatment or disposal, typically by incineration.

 Waste solvent from decreasing  operations comes from both
 manufacturing  and  maintenance activities.  The solvents are
 typically chlorinated materials. About 300 gal of this waste are
 generated annually and are disposed of by incineration offsite.

 A waste oil stream from equipment maintenance results from
 procedures  carried out on  equipment.  The  annual volume of
 this stream is about 400 gal.

 A waste stream composed of oily  rags results  from mainte-
 nance operations. The rags are  used primarily for wiping  and
 cleaning the equipment during  maintenance  procedures  as
 well as occasionally being used for spill  cleanup. The rags are
 disposed of offsite by consolidation and solidification prior to
 landfilling. The annual volume of  this stream is about 2500 Ib.

 A waste acid stream results from pickling activities carried out with
 stainless steel components, as well as from etching procedures
 used to mark parts numbers  on  some of these components. The
 annual volume of this stream  is about 60 gal. It is currently treated
 offsite by pH adjustment and subsequent biological treatment.

 An acid  cleanup solids wastestream results  from the  same
 activities described above but primarily  represents the wipers
 used  on  the stainless steel  components  which  have been
 pickled, etched,  rinsed, or soldered. The annual volume of this
 stream is about 80 Ib. It is treated by consolidation and solidifi-
 cation prior to landfilling.
                                Summary of Waste Minimization Opportunities
                                Table 1 presents the type of waste currently generated by the plant,
                                the sources of waste, the quantity of waste, and the annual treatment
                                and disposal costs (where known and available).

                                Table 2 presents the  opportunities for waste minimization recom-
                                mended for the facility. The type of waste, the minimization opportu-
                                nity, the possible waste reduction and associated savings, and the
                                implementation cost along with the payback times are given in the
                                table. The quantities of waste currently generated at the facility and
                                possible waste reduction depend on the level of activity of the facility.
                                All values should be considered in that context.

                                It should  be  noted that the economic savings  of the minimization
                                opportunity, in most cases, result from the need for less raw material
                                and from reduced present and future costs associated with waste
                                treatment and disposal.  It should also be noted that the savings
                                given for each  opportunity  reflect the  savings achievable  when
                                implementing each waste minimization opportunity  independently
                                and do not reflect duplication of savings that would result  when the
                                opportunities  are implemented  in a package. Also,  no equipment
                                depreciation is factored into the calculations.

                                This Research Brief summarizes a part of the work done under
                                cooperative  Agreement No.  CR-815165 by the  New Jersey
                                Institute of Technology under the sponsorship  of the New
                                Jersey Department  of  Environmental  Protection  and Energy
                                and the U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency. The EPA Project
                                Officer was Mary Ann Curran. She can be reached at:

                                        Pollution Prevention  Research Branch
                                        Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
                                        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                        Cincinnati, OH 45268
 Table 1. Summary of Current Waste

 Waste Generated
Generation

  Source of Waste
 Rinsing Wastes


 Waste Aqueous Ink


 Flammable Waste Ink


 Ink Spill Solids
 (Aqueous)

 Ink Spill Solids
 (Flammable)

 Solvent

 Waste Oil

 Oily Rags

 Waste Acid

Acid Cleanup Solids
  Rinsing equipment in ink
  production area

  Flushing of ink pumps and
  disposal of off-spec products

  Flushing of ink pumps and
  disposal of off-spec products

  Residues from machinery cleaning
  and adsorbents from spill control

  Residues from machinery cleaning
  and adsorbents from spill control

  Degreasing

  Equipment maintenance

  Maintenance operations

  Etching and pickling of metal

  Wipers for metal after pickling
  or etching
Annual Quantity     Annual Waste
  Generated     Management Costs
  30,000 gal
    800 gal
    200 gal
   12,000 Ib
    1,500 Ib
$10,000
 $2,000
   $500
$15,000
 $2,000
300 gal
400 gal
2500 Ib
ital 60 gal

-------
Table 2.  Summary of Waste Minimization Opportunities


                     Minimization Opportunity
Waste Stream
Reduced
                                                       Annual Waste Reduction
Rinsing Wastes
Rinsing Wastes
Ink Spill Solids
                     Schedule batch production where
                     possible to go from light
                     to dark colors to reduce the need
                     for extended rinsing of equipment

                     For rinses from filling equipment
                     segregate them and then use them
                     as makeup water for the next similar
                     batch.
Quantity

3000 gal




1500 gal
	        Net       Implementation      Payback
Percent  Annual Savings      Cost          Years'
                     Institute spill prevention plan to        3,000 Ib
                     improve movement of materials around
                     the facility, improve transfer techniques
                     between containers, catch spills to reduce
                     need for cleanup
Flammable Ink Wastes  Improve scheduling of production runs  20 gal

Flammable Ink Spills    Devise spill prevention plan           1751b
                                                                      10%
5%
               25%
                                                                      10%

                                                                      25%
             $1,000
$500
             $3,750
                             $50

                             $500
                $0
$200
               $500
                               0

                             $500
Degreasing Solvent


Oily Rags
                     Change to non-chlorinated solvent
                     Investigate use of commercial
                     laundry for cleaning of maintenance
                     wipes *
(actual volume may stay constant, but level of risk would
decrease)

25001 b         100%        $3000         $2400
                                   (This is an annual charge)
immed




0.4




0.2





immed

1.0




0.8
' Savings result from reduced raw material, and treatment and disposal costs when implementing each minimization opportunity independently.
t Addresses minimization of waste rags, but not of the oily wastes contained in them.
  United States
  Environmental Protection Agency
  Center for Environmental Research Information
  Cincinnati, OH 45268

  Official Business
  Penalty for Private Use
  $300
                                                                                                     BULK RATE
                                                                                               POSTAGE & FEES PAID
                                                                                                         EPA
                                                                                                  PERMIT No. G-35
  EPA/600/S-92/041

-------