vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Research and Development
Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
EPA/600/S-92/059 October 1992
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH BRIEF
Waste Reduction Activities and Options for a Manufacturer of
Electroplating Chemical Products
Alan Ulbrecht 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 produces chemicals for use in electroplating
baths. The process formulates and blends concentrates of
metal salts and additives which are used in electroplating and
other metal finishing operations. The resulting solutions are
clarified and tested for quality and consistency. A site visit was
made in 1990 during which several opportunities for waste
minimization were identified. Options identified include a spill
prevention plan, expanded use of ion exchange, and electrow-
inning to recover metal from concentrated waste streams.
Implementation of the identified waste minimization opportuni-
ties 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 production of chemicals for use in
electroplating baths (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,
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
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.
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 pure chemical concentrates for
use in the electroplating and metal finishing industries. The
process uses several large tanks for precise formulation of the
components of the marketed concentrates. Quality control
checks for purity and product consistency are carried out.
Filtration of the batches to clarify the liquids prior to shipment
to customers is also carried out.
This urban facility employs about 50 people. It has been in
business at its present location for about 50 years.
Manufacturing Processes
The production of the plating bath chemicals is fundamentally a
blending and dissolving process where mixtures of the chemi-
cals required for use in electroplating baths or other metal
finishing processes are prepared in large tanks (1000 to 3000
gal). The product concentrates are useful to metal finishers
because they facilitate bath preparation and makeup at their
facilities and the consistent quality reduces the likelihood of
metal finishing problems and resulting waste from their activi-
ties. Regular chemical analysis is carried out during the course
of the preparation to assure quality and consistency of the
product. Off-specification material is sent for treatment or for
recycling.
The formulated solutions are filtered to assure purity and clarity
when they reach the customer and then packaged for shipment.
Besides the off-specification materials, waste streams are
generated by spills and leaks, laboratory wastes, filter clean-
up, and cleaning of other equipment. The facility produces
products containing nickel, copper, tin, and lead.
Existing Waste Management Activities
The company has already instituted pollution prevention activi-
ties. For example, certain metal-containing concentrates have
been sent to smelters or other secondary recovery operations
in order to reduce the volume of the waste stream which is
sent for disposal. Spills are treated with adsorbent rather than
being washed into discharge to the POTW. This reduces the
burden of metals to the POTW, but does create a solid waste
stream.
The concern for quality and consistency in the products leads
to a certain amount of the production being considered off-
specification. Often this results at the end of production runs
when levels of some additives such as sulfate or ammonia may
be too high. These materials are sent offsite for recovery.
About 3200 gal of this type of waste is generated annually.
These streams typically have about 30% solids.
The batches of metal-containing concentrates are filtered through
spiral wound polypropylene filters to specified clarity. The filters
are washed with hydrochloric and sulfuric acids to remove
residual metal solution, and the acid solutions are combined
with other acid streams from throughout the operation. The
washed filters are disposed of as nonhazardous solid waste.
The laboratory tests both in-process and finished batches from
the manufacturing process. In addition, samples of customer's
electroplating baths made from the company's products are
analyzed upon customer request. Analysis of on-going research
and development products is also carried out in the laboratory.
All unused samples, concentrates, and similar materials are
collected and separated by metal type for either recovery or
combination, where feasible, with spent concentrate batches.
Solutions generated from the laboratory procedures are com-
bined with other acid streams from throughout the facility.
Spills and leaks of processing chemicals and formulated batches
are cleaned up by application of commercial adsorbent cleanup
materials. These products are collected and sent offsite for
disposal as hazardous waste. Approximately 1200 Ib of this
waste stream are generated annually
The combined acid streams are adjusted to pH 10 to induce
precipitation of hydroxide sludges. The solids are recovered by
use of a filter press. The supernatant liquids are polished by
-------
passage through ion exchange resins and the effluent is dis-
charged to the POTW. The resins are regenerated by use of
sulfuric acid and this acid stream is recycled back to the mixed
acid stream for precipitation.
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, result 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.
Some of the opportunities for waste reduction in manufacturing
operations related to this one include possibilities for reblending
* Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
of off-specification batches into future batches of the product.
The demands of the customers for quality and consistency in
the product concentrates preclude such an approach in the
opinion of the management of the facility. Another potentially
useful option at this facility would be to segregate metal-rich
waste streams and subject them to electrowinning giving a
marketable metal product. Such waste streams may be cre-
ated from the ion exchange resin backwashings or the washings
of the clarifying filters.
Regulatory Implications
The greatest regulatory imperative which drives pollution pre-
vention in the metal finishing industry and affiliated industries
are regulations, or the possibility of regulations, which govern
levels of heavy metals in water discharges and in streams to
be sent for landfilling. Aside from that type of acceleration,
there seems to be no significant regulatory impediment at a
facility of this type. The option of electrowinning to recover
metal from concentrated process streams might be interpreted
by some regulators as a treatment process requiring a RCRA
permit. Any such permitting requirements would make imple-
mentation of an option such as this very difficult.
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
High Metal Content
Liquids
Metal Contaminated
Source of Waste
Off-specification products
Clean-up of spills and
Annual Quantity
Generated
3,200 gal
1,200 Ib
Annual Waste
Management Costs
$11,600
2,400
Adsorbent
leaks
Metal Hydroxide Sludge Filter press cake from acid
stream precipitate
Aqueous Discharge
Supernatant from metal
precipitation
8,300 Ib 6,000
(The facility did not supply this information,
the values are estimated based on analogy with
similar facilities.)
280,000 gal
60
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994 - 550-067/80177
-------
Table 2. Summary of Recommended Waste Minimization Opportunities
Waste Stream Minimization Opportunity
Reduced
Annual Waste Reduction
Quantity
Percent
Net Implementation
Annual Savings Cost
Payback
Years'
Cleanup Adsorbent
Develop spill control and leak
mitigation plan
600 Ib
Metal Hydroxide Sludge Install electrowinning capability, 4000 Ib
segregate concentrated metal streams
by metal type, recover metal for scrap
Acid Waste Stream
Rather than precipitation of metals 8,300 Ib
consider expanded use of ion exchange
capability. Process all acid wastes
with segregation according to metal content
through resins. Recover washings and
electrowin metal.
50
50
100
$1,200 $4,000 3.3
(This will be a continuing
activity with continuing
expenses.)
3,000 20,000 6.6
(Electrowinning from the process
off-specification material may improve
may change the economics but may also
require different size units and more
operating expense.)
6,000
20,000
3.3
* 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
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/600/S-92/059
------- |