SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Research and Development
Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
EPA/600/S-92/043 Oct. 1992
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH BRIEF
Waste Reduction Activities and Options for an
Autobody Repair Facility
Kevin Gashlin 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 assessments at 30 small- to medium-sized busi-
nesses in the state of New Jersey. One of the sites selected
was an autobody repair facility. A site visit was made in 1990
during which several opportunities for waste minimization were
identified. These opportunities include alternative spraying
systems to improve transfer efficiency, increased use of water-
based paints, and onsite distillation to permit recycling of sol-
vents. Implementation of the identified waste minimization op-
portunities 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 Investiga-
tors and EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory in Cin-
cinnati, OH, to announce key findings of this completed as-
sessment.
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 dis-
posal of hazardous substances, including both process-related
wastes and residues from waste treatment, receive significant
attention because of regulation and economics.
* New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102
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
Division of Hazardous Waste Management, NJDEPE, is pursu-
ing the goals of waste minimization awareness and program
implementation in the state. HWAP, with the help of an EPA
grant from the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, con-
ducted an Assessment of Reduction and Recycling Opportuni-
ties for Hazardous Waste (ARROW) 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 assessments following the
approach outlined in EPA's Waste Minimization Opportunity
Assessment Manual (EPA/625/7-88/003). Under contract to
NJDEPE, the Hazardous Substance Management Research
Center at NJIT assisted in conducting the assessments. This
research brief presents an assessment of a facility that repairs
automobile bodies (1 of the 30 assessments performed) and
provides recommendations for waste minimization options re-
sulting 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
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
with which the facility staff could apply the manual. In some
cases, NJITs role was to provide advice. In others, NJIT
conducted essentially the entire evaluation.
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 complications developed, the team offered assis-
tance in the technical review, inspections, and option develoo-
ment.
The Autobody Repair Facility
The process used is fundamentally one of removing damaged
parts and repairing or replacing them as necessary. The surface
is then prepared for repainting by grinding, filling with special
autobody fillers (if necessary), and sanding until smooth. The
area is primed with a coating to promote adherence of the
paint and then painted.
The choice of paint type and color is guided by manuals which
are issued by the automobile manufacturers. Several different
paint companies provide the coatings used in this field so the
facility management must choose the best combination of com-
patibility, price, and service. The paint is usually solvent-based
because this is the type of paint used by the original manufac-
turers of the automobile, and the desire is to achieve as dose
a match of appearance and color as possible. There may be
some choice of primer but it is most frequently a solvent-based
material as well.
This facility purchases only as much coating as is required for
a particular job. This practice reduces the quantity of waste
which must eventually be disposed of offsite. The paint is
thinned (often about 1:1) with solvents and then applied by
spraying. Depending upon the original coating of the car, a
clear lacquer finish is sometimes applied.
The operations of a facility such as this are very demanding.
Business usually comes in as a result of a low bidding process
or at a price set by an outside insurance adjuster. The customer
expects fast turn around and is usually very demanding about
the appearance of the final product. The staff of the facility is
highly dependent upon suppliers of parts and other essential
needs to complete the job. In addition to these concerns, they
must be aware of and in compliance with numerous environ-
mental regulations.
Waste Streams and Existing Waste
Management
The facility is a relatively small generator of hazardous waste.
About 25 gal of mixed solvent and paint residues are sent
offsite annually for treatment. This represents the small amount
of paint residues left in the equipment and the solvent used to
clean the equipment, particularly the paint spraying equipment.
Another loss to the facility is evaporation of solvent in the paint
due to overspray. It is estimated that about 30% of the paint is
lost to overspraying. A source of emissions which is harder to
quantify is the evaporation of solvents in the paint as the paint
dries.
The filters in the spray booth are fiberglass and it is planned to
send them offsite for disposal as industrial non-hazardous
waste. Because the spray booth is brand new, there is no
information available about quantities of this stream.
The company has already developed an understanding of
environmental issues related to the operations of its industry
and has taken positive actions. For example, any tires which
must be removed from vehicles being repaired are sent for
recycling. Also, the new spray booth will provide better capture
and recovery of oversprays.
Waste Minimization Opportunities
The type of waste currently generated by the facility the
source of the waste, the quantity of the waste and the annual
treatment and disposal costs are given in Table 1.
Table 2 shows the opportunities for waste minimization recom-
mended for the facility. The type of waste, the minimization
opportunity, the possible waste reduction and associated sav-
ings, and the implementation cost along with the payback
times are given in the table. The quantities of waste currently
generated at the facility and the 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 minimiza-
tion opportunity in most cases results from the need for less
raw material and from reduced present and future costs asso-
ciated 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 minimiza-
tion opportunity independently and do not reflect duplication of
savings that would result when the opportunities are imple-
-------
mented in a package. Also, no equipment depreciation is
factored into the calculations.
The most effective option in terms of reducing environmental
risk would appear to be a change from solvent-based coatings
to water-based coatings. However, such a change cannot be
carried out by a facility such as this alone. The manufacturers
of paints for this industry produce materials which must match
with the original paint on the vehicle. And the original coating is
usually solvent-based.
The original coating is chosen by the automobile manufacturer,
and the choice is based upon several criteria including cost,
appearance, durability, and ease of application. The automo-
bile manufacturers are somewhat dependent on the type of
coatings which are available to them from coating manufactur-
ers.
In this complicated situation it is not clear who needs to make
the move to water-based coatings. Some manufacturers have
started production of water-based primers where appearance
is not so critical. It is suggested that where performance re-
quirements permit, this facility shift to the use of such primers.
Because solvent-based paints will be needed for some time to
repair older model cars, it is suggested that the facility consider
purchase of a small distillation apparatus allowing recovery
and reuse of most of the solvent currently sent offsite for
disposal.
Finally, it is suggested that a modified spraying system using
high-volume low-pressure (HVLP) technology be investigated.
Such equipment in similar applications has reduced overspray
(and the resultant waste) by 10% to 30%.
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 Generation
Waste Generated
Mixed Solvents
Volatile Solvents
Volatile Solvents
Source of Waste
Paint wastes and equipment
cleaning
From drying of solvent
based paint
Waste from oversorav
Annual Quantity
Generated
25 gal
200 gal
(estimate)
finnal
Annual
Costs
$450
$ no cost
(fugitive emissions)
d>i jinn
(Includes loss of value
of paint as well.
Table 2. Summary of Waste Minimization Opportunities
Waste Stream Minimization Opportunity
Reduced
All Solvents Change to water based coatings.
This is a desirable option,
but is not possible for this
facility yet due to non-avail-
ability of needed materials.
Mixed Solvents Install a distillation capability,
recover, and reuse solvents
from equipment cleaning.
Overspray Change to high volume low pressure
spray painting technology
Annual Waste Reduction Net Implementation Payback
Quantity Percent Annual Savings Cost Years*
285 gal
22.5 gal
12 gal
(of paint)
100%
90%
10%
$2,850
$550
$240
$0
$1,000
$1,500
immed
2.0
7.0
* Savings result from reduced raw materials and treatment and d,sposal costs when implementing each minimization opportunity independently.
&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: WM - 5M-M7/MU4
-------
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-92/043
------- |