&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/S-95/019 September 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH BRIEF
Pollution Prevention Assessment for a Manufacturer of
Electroplated Truck Bumpers
Richard J. Jendrucko*, Thomas N. Coleman*, Brian T. Hurst*,
and Gwen P. Looby"
Abstract
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has funded
a pilot project to assist small and medium-size manufacturers
who want to minimize their generation of waste but who lack
the expertise to do so. In an effort to assist these manufactur-
ers Waste Minimization Assessment Centers (WMACs) were
established at selected universities and procedures were
adapted from the EPA Waste Minimization Opportunity As-
sessment Manual (EPA/625/7-88/003, July 1988). That docu-
ment has been superseded by the Facility Pollution Prevention
Guide (EPA/600/R-92/088, May 1992). The WMAC team at
the University of Tennessee performed an assessment at a
plant that manufactures electroplated bumpers and miscella-
neous parts for trucks. Steel and aluminum parts received
from a nearby facility are cleaned, rinsed, etched, and electro-
plated. The team's report, detailing findings and recommenda-
tions, indicated that a considerable amount of wastewater
treatment sludge is generated from the onsite treatment of
wastewater, and that significant waste reduction and cost sav-
ings could be achieved by reducing drag-out from the plating
tanks.
This Research Brief was developed by the principal investiga-
tors and EPA's National Risk Management Research Labora-
tory, Cincinnati, OH, to announce key findings of an ongoing
research project that is fully documented in a separate report
of the same title available from University City Science Center.
Introduction
The amount of waste generated by industrial plants has be-
come an increasingly costly problem for manufacturers and an
* University of Tennessee, Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics
* University City Science Center, Philadelphia, PA
additional stress on the environment. One solution to the
problem of waste generation is to reduce or eliminate the
waste at its source.
University City Science Center (Philadelphia, PA) has begun a
pilot project to assist small and medium-size manufacturers
who want to minimize their generation of waste but who lack
the in-house expertise to do so. Under agreement with EPA's
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, the Science
Center has established three WMACs. This assessment was
done by engineering faculty and students at the University of
Tennessee's (Knoxville) WMAC. The assessment teams have
considerable direct experience with process operations in manu-
facturing plants and also have the knowledge and skills needed
to minimize waste generation.
The pollution prevention opportunity assessments are done for
small and medium-size manufacturers at no out-of-pocket cost
to the client. To qualify for the assessment, each client must
fall within Standard Industrial Classification Code 20-39, have
gross annual sales not exceeding $75 million, employ no more
than 500 persons, and lack in-house expertise in pollution
prevention.
The potential benefits of the pilot project include minimization
of the amount of waste generated by manufacturers, and
reduction of waste treatment and disposal costs for participat-
ing plants. In addition, the project provides valuable experience
for graduate and undergraduate students who participate in the
program, and a cleaner environment without more regulations
and higher costs for manufacturers.
Methodology of Assessments
The pollution prevention assessments require several site vis-
its to each client served. In general, the WMACs follow the
-------
procedures outlined in the EPA Waste Minimization Opportu-
nity Assessment Manual (EPA/625/7-88/003, July 1988). The
WMAC staff locate the sources of waste in the plant and
identify the current disposal or treatment methods and their
associated costs. They then identify and analyze a variety of
ways to reduce or eliminate the waste. Specific measures to
achieve that goal are recommended and the essential support-
ing technological and economic information is developed. Fi-
nally, a confidential report that details the WMAC's findings
and recommendations (including cost savings, implementation
costs, and payback times) is prepared for each client.
Plant Background
This plant electroplates various types of bumpers and miscella-
neous parts for trucks. Approximately 100,000 parts are pro-
duced by this plant each year.
Manufacturing Process
Steel and aluminum sheet stock is stamped into various shapes
at a nearby company facility. The resulting parts are manually
buffed and polished. A coating of rust-inhibiting oil is applied to
the steel parts in order to minimize surface corrosion during
transportation and storage at the electroplating facility.
As parts are required for electroplating, they are removed from
their packaging and inspected. Parts that pass inspection are
placed onto racks for processing. The parts that do not pass
inspection are manually buffed and sanded onsite to repair
defects.
An overhead hoist is used to transfer the racked parts to a
series of tanks where parts are cleaned, rinsed, etched, and
copper, nickel, and chrome electroplated. After the parts have
been plated and rinsed in a final heated tank, they are re-
moved from the racks and allowed to air dry.
During a final inspection, each part is cleaned using paper
towels. Any surface irregularities in the plated parts are identi-
fied and repaired. Parts passing final inspection are packaged
and stored until shipment.
An abbreviated process flow diagram for the production of
plated bumpers is shown in Figure 1.
Existing Waste Management Practices
This plant already has implemented the following techniques to
manage and minimize its wastes.
• Two filter presses and a drying oven are used to reduce the
volume of hazardous wastewater treatment sludge shipped
offsite.
• Filtration units have been installed on the major plating tanks
to remove contaminants so that the life of the active solutions
can be extended.
Steel Bumpers
and Other
Truck Parts
Racking and
Inspection
Alkaline
Cleaning
Electro-
cleaning
Copper
Strike
Chrome
Plating
Nickel
Plating
Copper
Plating
Acid
Rinse
Hot Water
Rinse
Manual
Cleaning
Inspection
Bumpers and
Parts Shipped
to Customers
Figure 1. Abbreviated process flow diagram for steel bumper electroplating.
-------
Pollution Prevention Opportunities
The type of waste currently generated by the plant, the source
of the waste, the waste management method, the quantity of
the waste, and the waste management cost for each waste
stream identified are given in Table 1.
Table 2 shows the opportunities for pollution prevention that
the WMAC team recommended for the plant. The opportunity,
the type of waste, the possible waste reduction and associated
savings, and the implementation cost along with the simple
payback time are given in the table. The quantities of waste
currently generated by the plant and possible waste reduction
depend on the production level of the plant. All values should
be considered in that context.
It should be noted that the economic savings of the opportuni-
ties, in most cases, results from the need for less raw material
and from reduced present and future costs associated with
waste treatment and disposal. Other savings not quantifiable
by this study include a wide variety of possible future costs
related to changing emissions standards, liability, and em-
ployee health. It also should be noted that the savings given
for each opportunity reflect the savings achievable when imple-
menting each pollution prevention opportunity independently
and do not reflect duplication of savings that may result when
the opportunities are implemented in a package.
Additional Recommendation
In addition to the opportunities recommended and analyzed by
the WMAC team, one additional measure was considered.
This measure was not analyzed completely because of a lack
of sufficient information. Since this approach to pollution pre-
vention may, however, increase in attractiveness with changing
conditions in the plant, it was brought to the plant's attention for
future consideration.
• Reduce the number of parts that must be coated with rust-
inhibiting oil at the fabrication plant through careful schedul-
ing of part fabrication, shipping, and electroplating operations.
This research brief summarizes a part of the work done under
Cooperative Agreement No. CR-819557 by the University City
Science Center under the sponsorship of the U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. The EPA Project Officer was Emma
Lou George.
Table 1. Summary of Current Waste Generation
Waste Stream Generated
Miscellaneous solid waste
Cleaning solution and rinse water
Source of Waste
Unpacking of pan's (primarily)
Cleaning of steel pan's prior to plating
Annual Quantity
Waste Management Method Generated (Ib/yr)
Shipped offsite to municipal landfill 2,160 yd3
Sewered 20,961,000
Annual Waste
Management Cost
$14,380
10,800
Cyanide-contaminated rinse water
Acid rinsing solution
Rinse water from electroplating
Rinse water from electroplating
Alkaline cleaning solution and
rinse water
Caustic and zinc oxide cleaning
solution and rinse water
Contaminated nitric acid cleaning
solution
Rinse water
Rinse following copper-strike coating
of steel pan's and surface treatment
of aluminum parts
Acid rinse following copper-strike of
steel parts and surface treatment of
aluminum parts
Rinses following copper- and chrome-
plating of steel and aluminum parts
Rinse following nickel-plating of steel
and aluminum parts
Alkaline cleaning of aluminum parts
prior to plating
Zinc cleaning of aluminum parts prior to
plating and rinsing of parts following
acid cleaning
Acid cleaning of aluminum parts prior to
plating
Rinse following surface treatment of
aluminum pan's prior to copper plating
Treated in onsite wastewater
treatment plant; sewered 7,806,000
Treated in onsite wastewater
treatment plant; sewered 165,000
Treated in onsite wastewater 26,502,000
treatment plant; sewered
Treated in onsite wastewater 14,442,000
treatment plant; sewered
Sewered 8,118,000
Treated in onsite wastewater 20,608,000
treatment plant; sewered
Treated in onsite wastewater 165,000
treatment plant; sewered
Treated in onsite wastewater 488,000
treatment plant; sewered
6,800
140
23,100
12,590
4,180
17,960
140
420
Evaporated water
Contaminated filter tubes
Wastewater treatment sludge
Heated tanks in electroplating lines
Filtering of plating solutions
Onsite wastewater treatment plant
Evaporates to plant air
Shipped offsite for disposal
as hazardous waste
Shipped offsite for disposal
as hazardous waste
6,963,000
3,850
179,190
2,6501
30,550
78,280
Includes waste treatment, disposal, and handling costs
Includes raw material cost
-------
Table 2. Summary of Recommended Pollution Prevention Opportunities
Annual Waste Reduction
Pollution Prevention Opportunity
Waste Stream Reduced Quantity (Ib/yr)
Per Cent
Net Annual Implementation Simple
Savings Cost Payback (yr)
Reduce drag-out from plating tanks by utilizing
spray rinsing and drag-out boards. Install rinse
devices above each plating and wash tank to
spray a mist of water onto part racks as they
are removed from the tanks. Drag-out boards
should be installed between tanks in series.
This opportunity will lead to savings in plating
chemical purchases and reduced generation
of wastewater treatment sludge.
Reuse effluent from the onsite wastewater
treatment system in the rinsing stations follow-
ing each plating tank in the steel parts electro-
plating line.
Meter the wastewater leaving the plant in
order to reduce sewer charges. Currently,
sewer charges are assessed based on the
total amount of water purchased by the plant.
Utilize available covers on all heated process
tanks during periods of light or non-production
in order to reduce evaporative water losses.
Wastewater treatment
sludge
53,800
30
$41,200 $31,300 0.8
Rinse water
n/a
Evaporated water
25,725,000
n/a
3,482,000
37
n/a
50
11,860
3,270
1,320
19,700 1.7
8,700
2.7
0 immediate
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory (G-72)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/600/S-95/019
------- |