x-xEPA
                         United States
                         Environmental Protection
                         Agency
                         Research and Development
                                   Risk Reduction
                                   Engineering Laboratory
                                   Cincinnati, OH 45268
                                   EPA/600/S-92/044   Oct. 1992
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH   BRIEF
                     Waste Reduction Activities and Options for a
                 Fabricator and Finisher of Steel Computer Cabinets
                                  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 a fabricator and finisher of steel computer cabinets A site
visit was made in 1990 during which several opportunities for
waste minimization were identified. These opportunities include
improved painting technology, rationalization of metal-working
oils and coolants, and changes in degreasing solvent manage-
ment. 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 operations
                        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 fabricator and finisher of steel computer cabinets (1 of the
                        30 assessments 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
                                                                         IAA) Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
 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.

 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 develop-
 ment.


 The Steel Computer Cabinet Fabricator
 The production of the steel cabinets is fundamentally a three
 step operation: cutting and  shaping  the sheet metal; applying
 the finish; and assembling the cabinet. The facility operates as
 a job shop, depending on  orders from  computer equipment
 manufacturers. The computer manufacturer sets the specifica-
 tions for the cabinets and the facility is responsible for produc-
 ing items which meet the specifications. The facility uses com-
 plex technology, such  as computer-aided design and manufac-
 turing techniques in the metal cutting and shaping applications.

 The cutting  and shaping is highly automated  involving com-
 puter-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing equip-
 ment and processes.  This technology is useful in minimizing
waste of materials because care and effort  is put into optimum
parts layout and reduction of redundancy. However, the metal-
working activity requires a wide variety of metal-working fluids
and oils. It is not  clear why so many different types of these
 liquids are used; presumably it is based on recommendations
 of the manufacturers of each of the machines.

 After the metal-working stage, the  metal parts are  vapor de-
 greased using 1,1,1-trichloroethane as solvent. Following the
 degreasing, the metal surface is etched  using nitric acid and
 then sodium hydroxide. The etching process is useful in pro-
 moting adherence of the paint to the metal surface. The cleaned
 and etched surface is primed and then painted.

 The  facility has  three painting  systems:  a conventional air-
 assisted spray, an electrostatic disc spray, and a powder coat-
 ing system. The  paint system used depends  upon the type of
 coating  desired  and  the physical  properties of the coating
 system which must be used. The  type of coating  and  other
 finish conditions are usually specified by the computer company
 which is the  customer of  this facility. The  specifications re-
 quired by the customers limit the ability of the facility to optimize
 a pollution prevention initiative.

 After being painted the metal parts are assembled, inspected,
 and shipped to the  customer.

 The  company has already committed itself  to technological
 excellence and has made substantial investments to optimize
 its  manufacturing capability. This philosophy has  now  been
 extended to efforts in pollution prevention. An example of this
 is the acquisition  of the equipment for powder coating.


 Waste Streams and Existing Waste
 Management
 The metal-working fluids are reused until the  properties of the
 fluid are no longer sufficient for the  cooling/lubricating function
 needed. At that time they are drummed and sent for disposal
 offsite. About 7100  gal of this material is disposed of annually.

 The vapor degreaser  is used until the grease and oil content
 reduces the effectiveness of the chlorinated solvent. At that
 time the degreaser  is  emptied and the contaminated  solvent is
 sent offsite for disposal.  It  is estimated that about 7000 Ib  of
 this waste stream is generated annually.

 The etching process (typically used for aluminum parts) gener-
 ates 110 gal of nitric acid waste and 440 gal  of caustic waste
 annually. These waste streams are also sent offsite for disposal.

 The painting process  generates VOC emissions which  were
 not quantified as well  as sludges, thinners, and  clean  up
 wastes.  The total quantity  of wastes  from sludges, thinners,
 and cleanups is about  3300 gal each year. This material is also
 sent offsite for disposal.  In addition, about 2360 gal  of spent
 filters from the spray booths are sent offsite for disposal  each
 year.


 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 possible waste reduction depend

-------
 Table 1.  Summary of Current Waste Generation
 Waste Generated
                                     Source of Waste
 Metal Working Fluids


 Chlorinated Solvent


 Nitric Acid


 Caustic Solution

 Paint and Thinner

 Contaminated Filters
               Lubricants and coolants from
               metal cutting and forming

               Vapor degreasing operation
               Surface etching process
              Surface etching process

from
W
ition


om painting
spray booth
Annual Quantity
Generated
7, 100 gal
7,000 Ib
1 10 gal
440 gal
3,300 gal
2,360 gal
Annual
Costs
$48,200
$3,200
$160
$1,320
$15,380
$13,860
 Table 2.   Summary of Waste Minimization Opportunities

 Waste Stream          Minimization Opportunity
 Reduced
                                       Annual Waste Reduction       Net        Implementation      Payback
                                        Quantity    Percent  Annual Savings       Cost           Years*
 Metal Working Fluids
 Chlorinated Solvent
 Nitric Acid and
 Caustic Etching
 Wastes
 Thinners, Paints,
  and Clean up
  Solvents
Contaminated Filters
 Select the smallest number
 possible of fluid types.
 Larger volumes of the same
 fluid should make recycling possible.
 A mobile recycling service may
 be possible.

 If chlorinated solvent is
 required, consider an onsite
 distillation capability

 Another alternative would be to
 investigate water based degreasing
 systems.  Such a system would eliminate
 vapor emissions and would present less
 risk than the current system. It is not
 known, however, if currently available
 alternatives would meet performance
 characteristics for this system.

 It may be permissible to combine these
 two streams at the site resulting in at
 least a portion, depending upon the initial
pH which can be discharged to the POTW.

 Segregate by solvent type and paint
 clean up type. Use contaminated solvent
as first pass through in clean up of spray
equipment. Use mildly contaminated solvent
as thinner for next batch of paint.
Any metal particles should produce
a liquid which is not hazardous.
 This  should be confirmed by appropriate
testing.  Disposal as non-hazardous
water solution would significantly
lower disposal costs.

Improve capture efficiency of spraying
by selection of most effective spray
system and appropriate adjustment of
the system.
                                                               5600 Ib
660 gal
                                                               787 gal
 1778 gal     25%
              $12,000
                                                                           80%
                           $4240
                                                                                                         $5,000
220 gal     50%
20%
               $740
$3700
                              $2,000
            33%          $6620         $20,000
            (When the value of the paint saved
            is also considered the savings becomes
            much greater.  Paint at $100 per gal
            yields an additional annual savings of
            $49,000, shortening the payback period
            to less than one year.)
                                                                                                                         immed.
                                                           1.2
                                                          immed.
                                                          0.5
                                                                                                                         3.0
' Savings result from reduced raw materials and treatment and disposal costs when implementing each minimization opportunity independently.
                                                                            •ffV.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994 - 550-067/80159

-------
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 minimization
opportunity independently, and do  not  reflect duplication of
savings  that  would  result when  the opportunities are imple-
mented  in a  package. Savings not  quantifiable by this study
include a wide variety of possible future costs related to changing
emission standards, liability, and employee health.  Also, the
equipment depreciation is not factored into the calculations.

There is  substantial opportunity for pollution prevention at this
facility in the  area of coating application  technology.  A signifi-
cant portion of the total waste stream from this facility  is related
to paint application. Therefore efforts to  make more efficient
use of the coating and  to reduce the need for cleaning  and
capture of paint which is not employed  in coating the product
will be a  positive contributor to pollution prevention.

At the time of the assessment there was a particular problem
with a specialty paint  which was  being used in large volumes
with poor covering efficiencies. The  viscosity of the  paint and
curing catalyst system was very high, even after thinning by
the prescribed procedure. As a result, only about 40% of the
paint was actually getting on the computer cabinets because of
overspray caused  by the inability to effectively control  the
spraying  equipment. Because the paint/catalyst combination
cost about $100/gal this was an economic problem, and because
the overspray was captured  on filters  in the spray booth and
sent offsite for  disposal as  hazardous waste, it was  also a
pollution problem.

An option suggested  as  a result of the  assessment was to
investigate the  use of a high volume low pressure (HVLP)
spraying  system. Use of  such a system has  improved  the
covering  efficiency to 60% resulting  in cost savings both in
material purchasing and in waste treatment costs.

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
  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-92/044

-------