vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Research and Development
Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
EPA/600/S-92/056 October 1992
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH BRIEF
Waste Reduction Activities and Options for a
Laminator of Paper and Cardboard Packages
Hanna Saqa 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 facility that laminates paper and cardboard substrates
which are used for packaging purposes. The lamination is
accomplished by application of a liquid laminate to the surface
of the substrate followed by curing. The facility also applies
metallic coatings to similar substrates by transfer from mylar
films. A site visit was made in 1990 during which several
opportunities for waste minimization were identified. Options
identified included changing to UV curing for laminates and
onsite distillation and reuse of solvents. Implementation of the
identified waste minimization opportunities was not pan" of the
program. Percent waste reduction, net annual savings, imple-
mentation 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 lamination of paper and cardboard
substrates which are used to make packaging (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-
,..C> 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, NJIPs 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
• Devebping 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 empbys 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 and
that the solvent used is water. As in the oil-based productbn,
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 similar—raw 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 offsrte 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 productbn.
-------
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 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.
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. Also, no equipment depreciation is
factored into the calculations.
The two major options for pollution prevention at this facility
consist of completion of the move toward UV coatings and
away from solvent-based coatings. This effort is complicated
by customer demands and specifications which require the
continued use of solvent-based laminates. Continued educa-
tional efforts and perhaps improved performance of the UV
coatings may be required to change this situation.
Because cleaning of the equipment will still be required after
changing to UV coating laminates, it is recommended that a
* Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
single solvent, ideally one with relatively low toxicity, be se-
lected for this purpose. That solvent should be segregated and
a distillation capability obtained for the facility to allow recycling
and reuse. This will create another waste stream, the still
bottoms, but the volume of that stream will be substantially less
than the total volume of the washings.
The practice of using washing solution as makeup or thinner
solvent for application of new batches should be continued and
expanded where possible. Additionally, care should be taken to
keep containers of volatile solvents covered when not in use.
This will reduce the amount which evaporates into the atmo-
sphere.
Regulatory Implications
There are no significant regulatory issues which would impede
the implementation of additional pollution prevention initiatives
at this facility. Increased regulatory attention to air quality may
spur the development of additional types of UV coatings for
lamination purposes, addressing some of the performance and
appearance concerns of clients who insist upon solvent-based
lamination. A need remains for an outlet for the residual mylar
film. This may not be a regulatory issue, but increased atten-
tion to solid waste disposal may develop new options for
material of this type
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
Source of Waste
Mixed Organic Solvents Washing of equipment used to
apply coating to stock
Volatile Solvents
Metallized Mylar Film
Solvents driven off from
solvent-based coatings
Excess from stamping operation
Annual Quantity
Generated
40 drums
> 1000 gal
Variable
(Estimated 2000 Ib)
Annual Waste
Management Costs
$4,000
(Cost of operating thermal
oxidation system)
65/ton
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: MM - S50-M7/WISI
-------
Table 2. Summary of Recommended Waste Minimization Opportunities
Waste Generated Minimization Opportunity
Washing Solvents
Acquire distillation capability
to allow recycle and reuse of
solvent
40 drums
Implementation Payback
Volatile Solvents
Complete changeover to UV
laminates
Quantity Percent
> 1000 gal 100
Annual Savings
Cost of operation
of thermal oxidizer
Cost
$0
Years '
immed
100 $4000
(However a still bottoms waste
stream will be created.)
5000
1.2
* Savings result from reduced raw material and treatment and disposal costs when implementing each minimization opportunity independently.
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA/600/S-92/056
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
------- |