v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/S-92/054 October 1992
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH BRIEF
Waste Reduction Activities and Options for a Manufacturer of
General Purpose Paints and Painting Supplies
Alan Ulbrecht and Daniel J. Wans*
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 facility that manufactures both oil-based and water-
based paints for general purpose use. The paint is produced
by mixing solvent, pigment, and other ingredients, all of which
are purchased from vendors. The facility already practices
many pollution prevention concepts. A site visit was made in
1990 during which several opportunities for waste minimization
were identified. Options identified include improved scheduling
techniques, reuse of rinses, and formulation of residues into
other products. Implementation of the identified waste minimi-
zation 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 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
* New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark. NJ 07102
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 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 the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) assisted
in conducting the assessments. This research brief presents
an assessment of the manufacturing of paints for general
purpose use (1 of the 30 assessments performed) and pro-
vides recommendations for waste minimization options result-
ing 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-
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
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, 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 develop-
ment.
No sampling or laboratory analysis was undertaken as part of
these assessments.
Facility Background
The facility is a manufacturer of oil-based and water-based
paints sold for general purpose use. In addition, the company
produces painting supplies such as spackle and caulking com-
pound. The company purchases solvents, pigments, and addi-
tives and blends them in the proper formulation to create.their
product line. The materials are then packaged. In order to
maintain quality and product consistency, it is necessary to
clean the mixing and filling equipment to prevent contamination.
The facility is located in an urban area and employs about 125
people. This particular facility has been in operation for more
than 50 years. Substantive pollution prevention concepts have
already been introduced into the operations of this facility,
including distillation and reuse of waste solvents.
Manufacturing Process
The production of oil-based paints is accomplished by combining
and blending the required raw materials such as pigments,
resins, co-solvents, and additives with the paint solvents such
as toluene or xylene to achieve the required product specifica-
tion. When color or production changes are made, the tanks
and equipment are washed with solvents. The finished prod-
ucts are packaged and prepared for shipment from the facility.
The production of latex or water-based paints is similar except
that different types of raw materials are used in production arid
that the solvent used is water. As in the oil-based production,
color or production changes require washing of the tanks and
equipment, in this case with water. The finished products are
packaged and prepared for shipment from the facility.
The facility also produces other types of products for the
painting industry including spackling compounds and caulking
materials. The production process for these types of materials
are similarraw materials are purchased, formulated, and
blended according to specifications, packaged, and shipped
from the facility. The major difference is that these products are
solids rather than liquid, so the use of solvents and equipment
cleaning needs are substantially different. At the request of the
facility, this assessment focussed on the paint manufacturing
area.
Existing Waste Management Activities
The company has already instituted a program of pollution
prevention. This is perhaps best illustrated by the addition of
distillation equipment for recovery and reuse of waste solvents.
The current waste management activities at the facility dem-
onstrate an awareness of pollution prevention concepts.
For the oil-based paints, the first identified waste stream is the
waste solvent used in the washing of the equipment. This
waste stream which contains paint pigments and other additives
is generated at a rate of about 1100 gal/wk. The stream is
distilled onsite in a 300-gal capacity still. The still bottoms,
about 110 gal/wk, is a very dry material which is sent offsite for
disposal as hazardous waste. Any filters or dust collectors
used to filter batches of paint are collected, dried and sent out
for disposal as nonhazardous waste based upon their lack of
content of hazardous material. VOCs from evaporating solvent
is another waste stream but the volume could not be estimated.
For the water-based paints, the first identified waste stream is
the washings from cleaning the equipment between batches.
This wash water contains pigments and other additives and in
many ways can be considered to be very dilute paint. The
wash waters are segregated by color in 55-gal drums prior to
onsite processing. The individual drums are combined in a
1000-gal tank and a polymeric flocculent is added to remove
the solids. The flocculated mixture is passed through a drum
filter, the solids are removed and dried and the liquid is dis-
charged to a POTW. The approximately 1500 Ib/wk of dried
solid is sent offsite for disposal as nonhazardous waste. Any
filters or dust collectors used to filter batches of this type of
paint are collected, dried and sent out for disposal as nonhaz-
ardous waste. They are maintained separately from the similar
materials from the oil-based paint production.
-------
Care is taken at the facility in the movement and transfer of the
organic solvents to minimize fugitive emissions of these materi-
als. There are opportunities for remixing and reuse of some
product returns. Others can be inserted in the waste manage-
ment stream at the facility allowing the solvent to be recovered
or the solids to be removed from the water prior to discharge to
the POTW.
dated 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. Also, no equipment depreciation is
factored into the calculations.
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. This particular
facility presents an interesting pollution prevention challenge in
describing waste streams. The existence and use of the distil-
lation capability addresses successfully one of the major pollution
prevention opportunities for manufacturers of this type. The
procedure used for the removal of solids from the aqueous
washings does, in fact, reduce the burden which is sent to the
POTW. From that perspective, the practice is a pollution pre-
vention exercise, however, by simply removing the solids from
the water medium to a solid waste medium, no net benefit has
been achieved. Pollution prevention options which identify a
use for the material would be preferred.
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 time
are given in the table. The quantities of waste currently gener-
ated at the facility and possible waste reduction depend on the
level of activity of the facility.
H 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-
* Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
Regulatory Implications
There are no significant regulatory issues which would impede
the application of additional pollution prevention initiatives at
this facility, with the possible exception of any air permit modi-
fications. Changes in air regulations, tightening the use of
VOC's, may accelerate changes in manufacturing operations in
the coating industry as a whole, both in their own practices and
in changing consumer requirements. Some suggestions about
beneficial secondary reuse of materials recovered from these
processes may be difficult to implement because of current
hazardous waste regulations. Some options identified require
retention of various washings onsite until a similar batch of
material is again manufactured. Such retention requires storage
onsite of larger quantities of material than is presently done.
Such additional quantities may initiate regulatory compliance.
Potential situations such as this indicate that society sometimes
demands a balance when good objectives compete with each
other.
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
Still Bottoms
Latex Paint Solids
Aqueous Effluent
Paint Filters
Annual Quantity
Source of Waste Generated
Distillation of solvent from
equipment washings
Solids recovered by flocculation
of latex paint washings
Supernatant liquid from flocculation
of latex paint washings
Removal of dust or impurities from
104 drums
78,000 Ib
195,000 gal
3 drums
Annual Waste
Management Costs
$26,500
3,500
550
120
product
&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1*94 - S54MW7'MU2
-------
Tab/0 2. Summary of Recommended Waste Minimization Opportunities
Waste Stream
Reduced
Minimization Opportunity
Annual Waste Reduction
Quantity Percent
Net Implementation Payback
Annual Savings Cost Yean *
Still Bottoms The best way to reduce thiis 26 drums 25
stream is to reduce the volume
of solvent-based washings which
are sent for recovery. Reuse of
some as make up solvent for a
future batch of a similar or
color-compatible product, or going
from lighter to darker batches would
lower the quantity of this stream.
Solids from Latex Similarly this stream could be 19,500 Ib 25
Paint Washings reduced by use of the washings
as make up water for future batches.
The practice is already to segregate
washes by color. Retention and scheduling
should facilitate such reuse. An
assumption of 25% savings is conservative
and would lower disposal costs*
Aqueous Effluent The same as above. 48,750gal 25
Paint Filters Investigate the use of definable 3 drums 100
filter screens, although volumes of
solvent and wash water will increase.
$6625
$600
0.1
875
unmed
138
120
0
2,000
immed
16
* Savings result from reduced raw material and treatment and disposal costs when implementing each minimization opportunity independently.
* A state-of-the-art paint manufacturing facility in the Netherlands creates almost no waste by using computerized mixing and dedicated color hoses.
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-92/054
------- |