vi-EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/S-92/062 October 1992
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH BRIEF
Waste Reduction Activities and Options for a Manufacturer of
Commercial Dry Cleaning Equipment
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 manufactures machinery used for commercial
dry cleaning operations. A site visit was made in 1990 during
which several opportunities for waste minimization were identi-
fied. Options identified for waste reduction included improve-
ment of spray painting operations and recycling opportunities
for wood scrap. In addition there is an option mentioned to
encourage the change of refrigerant to a non-CFC chemical.
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 disposal
of hazardous substances, including both process-related wastes
and residues from waste treatment, receive significant atten-
tion 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, New Jersey De-
partment of Environmental Protection and Energy, NJDEPE, is
pursuing the goals of waste minimization awareness and pro-
gram implementation in the state. HWAP, with the help of an
EPA grant from the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,
conducted an Assessment of Reduction and Recycling Oppor-
tunities 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 machinery used for
commercial dry cleaning operations (1 of the 30 assessments
performed) and provides recommendations for waste minimi-
zation 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
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, 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 equipment for commercial dry
cleaning operations. The facility is responsible for the design
and fabrication of the components used to construct the
equipment. The components are shipped off site for assembly
and for application of the prime coating. Then the assembled
units are transported to this facility where they are tested for
operational capability and the final painting is done. Approxi-
mately 500 units are produced each year.
The facility is located in an urban area and employs about 35
people.
Manufacturing Processes
The only production process which occurs at this facility is the
final painting of the dry cleaning equipment. The painting is
carried out in spray booths using a commercially available
high-solids, solvent-based paint. The spray booths use fiber-
glass filters to capture overspray. The units 'are shipped into
the facility in wooden packing materials. These packaging
materials generate another waste stream.
Existing Waste Management Activities
There are only two waste streams which are generated at this
facility. The filters from the spray booth are made of fiberglass
and must be changed and disposed of at regular intervals
when air flow becomes difficult because of clogging of the
filters. The facility uses about 1500 filters each year. The size
of the filters is 20"x20"x1". Although the filter system captures
solids, it does not have the ability to retain volatile organics
from the solvent. On average, the facility uses 6 gal of paint
each day. The filters are sent offsite for disposal. While it
appears that the waste stream from this portion of the activity
is the used filters, the waste stream is actually that portion of
the paint that does not adhere to the surface to be coated.
Therefore, the waste management activity and costs include
purchasing the filters and the disposal of the spent filters.
The other waste stream that is generated at this facility is wood
scrap which results from the packing materials used to ship the
units to and from this facility. Presently, the facility produces
about 100-125 yd3 of such crating wood scrap annually. The
landfill disposal cost for this material is about $2000/yr.
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 challenge in determining waste
minimization opportunities since the potential opportunities
present themselves in several ways and are instructive to other
types of companies.
At the level of the operations at the facility itself, an evaluation
of improved painting procedures and of alternative uses for
wood scrap, could have a favorable impact upon the quantity
of waste generated. At another level, a significant portion of the
production of the dry cleaning units is accomplished offsite.
This portion of the production also includes a painting step.
While having the painting carried out elsewhere limits emissions
at this facility, the management should be encouraged to require
a waste reduction opportunities assessment to be carried out
at the offsite facility as well. Ideally, every production step for
any product should be designed and operated to minimize
waste and emissions.
Dry cleaning units overall were redesigned to include the
capability to distill and reuse the solvent in response to earlier
pollution prevention concerns. This redesign involves both a
heating and cooling unit. The dry cleaners who purchase and
use this equipment have a desire to minimize use and loss of
the solvent, perechloroethylene, used for dry cleaning applica-
tions.
While this type of unit provides distinct pollution prevention
advantages for the dry cleaners, it comes with a disadvantage.
-------
The cooling unit for the distillation capability uses CFC-502 as
a refrigerant. This material is recognized as an ozone-depleting
agent. While this is not a pollution prevention issue for this
facility per se, it does present a potential problem for the
buyers of the unitsthe commercial dry cleaners. However,
the manufacturer of the units buys the refrigeration units from
another manufacturer.
While there is a general agreement that a different refrigerant
would be desirable, it is not clear who has responsibility for
making the first step to develop the technology to make the
change. The refrigeration equipment manufacturer may say
that change is not possible until the producers of the refrigerants
can supply a non-ozone-depleting refrigerant. While some al-
ternative refrigerants are now available, they require modifica-
tions of the cooling units to be effective. It is not clear at this
point how far any of the companies involved in this technical
issue can go independently to address the concerns. It is also
not clear that effective technical alliances have been made to
encourage the desired changes.
Similarly, a dry cleaning process which did not use perchloro-
ethylene or some other chlorinated solvent would also be
desirable. The facility manufacturing the dry cleaning units
does not have the technical resources to develop such a new
system. It is also not clear if such technology can be devel-
oped.
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.
* Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
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 arid 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 savings that would
result when the opportunities are implemented in a package.
Also, no equipment depreciation is factored into the calcula-
tions.
Regulatory Implications
The potential regulatory implications of pollution prevention
initiatives at this facility will affect the manufacture of this
product as well as its use at dry cleaning shops. Changes in
permitted levels of VOC emissions might have an impact on
the spray painting operation. However, at 6 gal/day of paint,
this is not a major emitter. The upcoming restrictions on the
production and use of CFC's will have a significant impact on
dry cleaning units made by the facility which may require a
design change on the part of the facility as well as retrofitting of
the units already in the field. Similarly, any regulatory restrictions
on the use of perchlorethylene will necessitate substantial
changes in the design and operation of such dry cleaning units.
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
Annual Quantity
Generated
Annual Waste
Management Costs
Contaminated Filters
Scrap Wood
Capture of overspray from
painting booth
Residue from wooden packing
crates
1,500 filters
100-125 yd3
$17,000
2,000
. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994 - 550-067/80176
-------
Table 2. Summary of Recommended Waste Minimization Opportunities
Waste Stream
Reduced
Minimization Opportunity
Annual Waste Reduction
Quantity
Percent
Net Implementation Payback
Annual Savings Cost Years *
Contaminated Reduce the quantity of overspray 750 filters 50
Filters in the painting operation.
A change to a high volume low
pressure spray gun has the potential
to improve transfer efficiency from
the usual 20% to 40% to 65% to 85%. This
means that more paint is on the unit
and less is in the filter. The
change will also reduce the emission
of VOC's by about 50% because the volume
of paint used is reduced.
Consider change from fiber glass 900 filters 60
filters to multi-layered chemically
treated paper filters. Such filters
are claimed to be 99% efficient as
contrasted to 92% efficiency for the
fiber glass filter. While the paper
filters are about twice as expensive
as the glass ones, they are claimed to
last about 2.5 times as long. This
extra use time has the potential to reduce
the volume of waste produced.
Scrap Lumber Identify area companies which recycle 100-125yd3 100
scrap wood. The cost of disposal by
this route is substantially less.
8500
7000
1500
$5000
0.6
This represents a simple
change from one type of
filter to another. There is
no real implementation
costs. The cost savings are
immediate and are estimated
as a function of reduced
disposal costs and higher
purchase costs for the filters.
immed.
* 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-92/062
------- |