United States Office of Research and EPA/625/7-91/014
Environmental Protection Development October 1991
Agency Washington DC 20460
Guides to Pollution
Prevention
The Fiberglass-Reinforced and
Composite Plastics Industry
-------
-------
EPA/625/7-91/014
October 1991
Guides to Pollution Prevention
The Fiberglass-Reinforced and
Composite Plastics Industry
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
and
Center for Environmental Research Information
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Notice
This report has been subjected to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's peer and
administrative review and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is intended as advisory guidance only to processors of fiberglass-
reinforced and composite plastics in developing approaches for pollution prevention.
Compliance with environmental and occupational safety and health laws is the responsibility
of each individual business and is not the focus of this document
Worksheets are provided for conducting waste minimization assessments of fiberglass-
reinforced and composite plastics businesses. Users are encouraged to duplicate portions of
this publication as needed to implement a waste minimization program.
-------
Foreword
Fiberglass-reinforced and composite plastic (FRP/C) product industries generate wastes
(including air emissions) during the fabrication process and from the use of solvents for clean
up of tools, molds and spraying equipment The wastes generated are: partially solidified
resins, contaminated solvent from equipment clean-up, scrap coated fiber, solvated resin
streams, and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions.
Reducing the generation of these wastes at the source, or recycling the wastes on or off
site, will benefit the FRP/C manufacturers by reducing raw material needs, reducing disposal
costs, and lowering the liabilities associated with hazardous waste disposal. This guide
provides an overview of the FRP/C process and operations that generate waste and presents
options for minimizing waste generation through source reduction and recycling.
-------
-------
Contents
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Acknowledgments . vi
1. Introduction 1
Overview of Waste Minimization Assessment 1
Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment 1
References 3
2. Fiberglass-Reinforced and Composite Plastic Products Industry Profile ; 5
Industry Description 5
Products and Their Uses 5
Raw Materials 5
Process Description 6
Waste Description .-. 8
References . 11
3. Waste Minimization Options for Fiberglass-Reinforced
and Composite Plastics Fabricators 13
Equipment Cleaning Wastes 14
Scrap Solvated and Partially Cured Resins 15
Gelcoat Resin and Solvent Overspray 16
Rejected and/or Excess Raw Materials 17
Empty Bags and Drums 17
Air Emissions ...18
Miscellaneous Waste Streams 18
References 19
4. Waste Minimization Assessment Worksheets 21
Appendix A 33
Case Studies of Fiberglass-Reinforced and Composite Plastic Fabricators
Appendix B 51
Where to Get Help: Further Information on Pollution Prevention
v
-------
Acknowledgments
This guide is based on a waste assessment study by Jonathan Tuck and Diana Evans of
Woodward-Clyde Consultants for the California Department of Health Services (DHS),
under the direction of Benjamin Fries, of the Alternative Technology Division, Toxic
Substances Control Program. Teresa Harten of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, was the
project officer responsible for the preparation of this manual, which was edited and produced
by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. J. D. Shoemaker and Rajeev Krishnan served as authors
for this manual.
We would like to thank the following people, whose review of this guide contributed
substantially to its development:
David Lucas - E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co.
CJL. Hamermesh - Society for the Advancement of Materials and Process
Engineering
Robert Lacovara - Fiberglass Fabrication Association
Joe Mc Dermott - Composite Service Corp.
Albert Rolston - Consultant
Jonathan Tuck - Dames and Moore
Much of the information in this guide that provides a national perspective on the issues
of waste generation and minimization was provided originally to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by Versar, Inc. and Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. in Waste Minimiza-
tion-Issues and Options, Volume II, Report No. PB87-114369 (1986).
VI
-------
Section 1
Introduction
This guide is designed to provide fiberglass-reinforced
and composites (FRP/C) plastics fabricators with waste mini-
mization options appropriate for this industry. It also provides
worksheets designed to be used for a waste minimization
assessment of an FRP/C fabricating plant, to be used in
developing an understanding of the plant's waste generating
processes and to suggest ways to reduce the waste. The guide
should be used by FRP/C fabricating companies, particularly
their plant operators and environmental engineers. Others
who may find this document useful are regulatory agency
representatives, industry suppliers and consultants.
In the following chapters of this manual you will find:
• A profile of the fiberglass-reinforced and composite
plastics industry and the processes used by the indus-
try (Section 2);
• Waste minimization options for FRP/C fabricating
firms (Section 3);
• Waste minimization assessment guidelines and
worksheets (Section 4);
• Appendices containing:
Case studies of waste generation and waste
minimization practices of FRP/C fabricating
firms;
Where to get help: additional sources of
information.
The worksheets and the list of waste minimization op-
tions for FRP/C fabricating were developed through assess-
ments of FRP/C fabricating firms by Woodward-Clyde
Consultants, commissioned by the California Department of
Health Services (Calif. DHS 1989). The firms' operations,
manufacturing processes, and waste generation and manage-
ment practices were surveyed, and their existing and potential
waste minimization options were characterized. Finally, eco-
nomic analyses were performed on selected options.
Overview of Waste Minimization Assessment
Waste minimization is a policy specifically mandated by
the U.S. Congress in the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Wastes
Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). As the federal agency responsible for writing regu-
lations under RCRA, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has an interest in ensuring that new methods
and approaches are developed for minimizing hazardous waste
and that such information is made available to the industries
concerned. This guide is one of the approaches EPA is using
to provide industry-specific information about waste minimi-
zation. The options and procedures outlined also can be used
in efforts to minimize other wastes generated in a business.
In the working definition used by EPA, waste minimiza-
tion consists of source reduction sind recycling. Of the two
approaches, source reduction is considered environmentally
preferable to recycling. While a few states consider treatment
of hazardous waste an approach to waste minimization, EPA
does not, and thus treatment is not addressed in this guide.
Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment
EPA has also developed a general manual for waste
minimization in industry. The Waste Minimization Opportu-
nity Assessment Manual (USEPA1988) tells how to conduct a
waste minimization assessment and develop options for re-
ducing hazardous waste generation. It explains the manage-
ment strategies needed to incorporate waste minimization into
company policies and structure, how to establish a company-
wide waste minimization program, conduct assessments, imple-
ment options, and make the program an on-going one. The
elements of waste minimization assessment are explained in
the next section.
A Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment (WMOA)
is a systematic procedure for identifying ways to reduce or
eliminate waste. The four phases of a waste minimization
opportunity assessment are: planning and organization, as-
sessment, feasibility analysis and implementation. The steps
involved in conducting a waste minimization assessment are
shown in Figure 1 and presented in more detail below. Briefly,
the assessment consists of a careful review of a plant's opera-
tions and waste streams and the selection of specific areas to
assess. After a particular waste stream or area is established as
the WMOA focus, a number of options with the potential to
minimize waste are developed and screened. The technical
and economic feasibility of the selected options are then
evaluated. Finally, the most promising options are selected for
implementation.
1
-------
The Recognized Need to Minimize Waste
±
Planning and Organization Phase
Get management commitment
Set overall assessment program goals
Organize assessment program task force
Assessment Organization &
Commitment to Proceed
Successfully Implemented
Waste Minimization Projects
Figure 1. The wast* minimization assessment procedure.
Assessment Report of
Selected Options
Final Report, Including
Recommended Options
Feasibility Analysis Phase
• Technical evaluation
• Economic evaluation
• Select options for implementation
Implementation Phase
Justify projects and obtain funding
Installation (equipment)
Implementation (procedure)
Evaluate performance
Assessment Phase
Collect process and site data
Prioritize and select assessment targets
Select people for assessment teams
Review data and inspect site
Generate options
Screen and select options for further study
Select New Assessment
Targets and Reevaluate
Previous Options
Repeat the Process
Planning and Organization Phase
Essential elements of planning and organization to a
waste minimization program are: obtaining management com-
mitment for the program; setting waste minimization goals;
and organizing an assessment program task force.
Assessment Phase
The assessment phase involves a number of steps:
• Collect process and site data
• Prioritize and select assessment targets
• Select assessment team
• Review data and inspect site
• Generate options
• Screen and select options for feasibility study
Collect process and site data. The waste streams at a site
should be identified and characterized. Information about
waste streams may be available on hazardous waste mani-
fests, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) reports, routine sampling programs and other sources.
Developing a basic understanding of the processes that
generate waste at a site is essential to the WMOA process.
Flow diagrams should be prepared to identify the quantity,
types and rates of waste generating processes. Also, preparing
material balances for various processes can be useful in
tracking various process components and identifying losses or
emissions that may have been unaccounted for previously.
Prioritize and select assessment targets. Ideally, all waste
streams in a business should be evaluated for potential waste
minimization opportunities. With limited resources, however,
a plant manager may need to concentrate waste minimization
efforts in a specific area. Such considerations as quantity of
2
-------
waste, hazardous properties of the waste, regulations, safety
of employees, economics, and other characteristics need to be
evaluated in selecting a target stream.
Select assessment team. The team should include people
with direct responsibility and knowledge of the particular
waste stream or area of the plant Operators of equipment and
the person who sweeps the floor should be included, for
example.
Review data and inspect site. The assessment team evalu-
ates process data in advance of the inspection. The inspection
should follow the target process from the point where raw
materials enter to the points where products and wastes leave.
The team should identify the suspected sources of waste. This
may include the production process; maintenance operations;
and storage areas for raw materials, finished product, and
work in progress. The inspection may result in the formation
of preliminary conclusions about waste minimization oppor-
tunities. Full confirmation of these conclusions may require
additional data collection, analysis, and/or site visits.
Generate options. The objective of this step is to generate
a comprehensive set of waste minimization options for further
consideration. Since technical and economic concerns will be
considered in the later feasibility step, no options are ruled out
at this time. Information from the site inspection, as well as
trade associations, government agencies, technical and trade
reports, equipment vendors, consultants, and plant engineers
and operators may serve as sources of ideas for waste minimi-
zation options.
Both source reduction and recycling options should be
considered. Source reduction may be accomplished through:
good operating practices, technology changes, input material
changes, and product changes. Recycling includes use and
reuse of waste, and reclamation.
Screen and select options for further study. This screen-
ing process is intended to select the most promising options
for full technical and economic feasibility study. Through
either an informal review or a quantitative decision-making
process, options that appear marginal, impractical or inferior
are eliminated from consideration.
4
Feasibility Analysis Phase
An option must be shown to be technically and economi-
cally feasible in order to merit serious consideration for
adoption at a facility. A technical evaluation determines
whether a proposed option will work in a specific application.
Both process and equipment changes need to be assessed for
their overall effects on waste quantity and product quality.
An economic evaluation is carried out using standard
measures of profitability, such as payback period, return on
investment, and net present value. As in any project, the cost
elements of a waste minimization project can be broken down
into capital costs and economic costs. Savings and changes in
revenue also need to be considered.
Implementation Phase
An option that passes both technical and economic feasi-
bility reviews should then be implemented at a facility. It is
then up to the WMOA team, with the management support, to
continue the process of tracking wastes and identifying oppor-
tunities for waste minimization, throughout a facility and by
way of periodic reassessments. Either such ongoing reassess-
ments or an initial investigation of waste minimization oppor-
tunities can be conducted using this manual.
References
Calif. DHS. 1989. Waste audit study: Fiberglass-rein-
forced and composite plastic products. Report pre-
pared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Oakland,
CA, for the Alternative Technology Section, Toxic
Substances Control Division, California Department
of Health Services.
USEPA. 1988. Waste minimization opportunity assess-
ment manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH, EPA/625/7-88/003.
3
-------
-------
Section 2
Fiberglass-Reinforced and Composite Plastic Products Industry Profile
Industry Description
The fiberglass-reinforced and composite (FRP/C) plastic
products industry is difficult to classify by Standard Industrial
Classification Code (SIC), because it crosses several indus-
trial categories, ranging from household vanity installations to
complex structural composites for the aerospace industry.
Some of the more common industries that fabricate fiberglass
and composite plastics as part of the manufacturing process
are the automotive, ship and boat building (SIC codes 3731
and 3732), aerospace and miscellaneous plastics products
industy (SIC codes 3081 to 3089). Table 1 shows the con-
sumption of fiberglass reinforced polyester resin in 1990 by
major market, along with the estimated value of products.
Currently, reinforced plastics make up about 5 percent of
the total plastic demand, but new developments in blending,
compounding, and fabrication will increase the demand for
reinforced plastics. Glass fiber is the dominant reinforcing
material, representing about 90 percent of reinforcement ma-
terials in use. Other common types of reinforcement materials
used are aramid and carbon fibers. The glassfiber-reinforced
structural composites market is expected to grow at a rate of
10 to 15 percent per year, primarily as a result of its increasing
importance in the construction of automotive components.
Products and Their Uses
Thousands of products are manufactured from reinforced
plastics. Examples include hulls for recreational and commer-
cial watercraft; bodies for recreational vehicles; building pan-
els; sporting equipment, appliances, and power tools; bathtub,
shower, and vanity installations; automotive, aerospace, and
aircraft components; and structural components for chemical
process equipment and storage tanks. The fiberglass reinforc-
ing in these plastic products improves their structural strength
and rigidity, as well as providing high heat resistance and
dielectric strength. The businesses included in the waste mini-
mization assessments of this guide supply finished FRP/C
products for the automobile, aerospace, sporting goods, recre-
ational and commercial watercraft, and vanity industries. How-
ever, considering the general nature of the fabrication processes,
the results of the study can be extended to other FRP/C
industries as well.
Plastics can be classified as either thermoplastic or ther-
mosetting. Thermoplastic materials become fluid upon heat-
ing above the heat distortion temperature, and, upon cooling,
set to an elastic solid. The process of reheating and cooling
can be repeated many times, although there may be some
degradation in chemical or physical properties of the final
product Thermosetting materials, on the other hand, irrevers-
ibly polymerize and solidify at elevated temperature. The
internal chemical structure of a thermosetting plastic material
is permanently altered by heat, resulting in a product that
cannot be resoftened (Jones and Simon 1983).
Both thermoplastic and thermosetting resins are used to
manufacture FRP/C plastic products. Thermoplastics process-
ing offers faster molding cycles, lower emissions during pro-
cessing, lower cost per pound of raw material, ease of recycling,
and lower labor intensity. Open molding of thermosetting
plastics is likely to continue as a viable process because of the
design constraints associated with many products, limited unit
production requirements, performance requirements, and mar-
ket demands. Recent advances in processing technologies and
thermoplastic resin systems are causing the thermoset-plastic
industry to examine alternative approaches to molding pro-
cesses.
Another rapidly growing market for fiber-reinforced struc-
tural composite plastics is the automotive and aerospace in-
dustry. Composites are becoming or have the potential to
become preferred materials for ceitain passenger car compo-
nents, such as leaf springs, suspension components, bumper
beams, drive shafts, wheels, and door structures. Components
such as these are expected to be processed largely from
fabricator suppliers (Fishman 1989).
Table 1. Consumption of Fiberglass-Reinforced Polyester
Resin by Market (1990)
Millions of
Fabricated Value
Pounds/Year
Million $
Aircraft/Aerospace
34
408
Appliances/Business equipment
93
279
Construction
364
1,729
Consumer products
127
572
Corrosion-resistant products
336
2,688
Electrical
S3
132
Marine
300
2,400
Transportation
215
1,075
Other
48.
192
Total
1,590
9,474
Source: Fiberglass Fabrication Association
Raw Materials
The materials primarily used by the FRP/C plastic prod-
uct manufacturing industry include resins, fiberglass or other
5
-------
fiber substrate, solvents, catalyst, and other specialty chemical
additives. A brief description of each category of raw material
is given below.
Resins
Typical resin classes used by ERP/C manufacturers in-
clude: polyesters, epoxies, polyamides, and phenolics. The
type of resin to be used in a particular process depends on the
specific properties required for the end product The resin is
usually supplied in liquid form, which may include a solvent.
For example, polyester is typically dissolved in styrene mono-
mer.
Fiber Reinforcement
Glass fiber substrates are manufactured in several forms.
The basic forms include continuous-strand mat, chopped strand
mat, fabrics (woven and knitted) and continuous strand weav-
ing. The form in which the fiber is used is dependent primarily
on the fabrication techniques. Fiberglass content in the prod-
uct typically ranges from 25 to 60 percent
Initiators and Catalysts
In the case of epoxy and polyester resins, curing employs
hardeners or catalysts to develop desirable properties. Curing
agents include amines, anhydrides, aldehyde condensation
products, and Lewis acid catalysts. Aliphatic amines, such as
diethylenetri amine and triethylenetetramine, are often used
for room temperature curings. Aromatic amines, such as
mcthylenedianiline, are used where elevated temperature cures
are acceptable. Formulated epoxy systems generally contain
accelerators, additives and fillers to reduce costs, shrinkage,
and thermal expansion (Calif. DHS 1989).
Additives
Chemical additives are introduced to obtain certain prod-
uct characteristics such as heat resistance, aging, electrical
properties, optical clarity, permeability, flame retardants, and
case of application. Because of the diversity of consumer
requirements, additive requirements are often complex. They
may include fillers; flame retardants; plasticizers; tougheners
and thickening agents; colorants; antioxidants; anti-static com-
pounds and ultraviolet stabilizers. There are literally hundreds
of chemicals used as additives. Four functional classes of
additives (fillers, plasticizers, reinforcements and colorants)
account for about 90 percent of all additives used in plastics.
Compared to resins, these materials are generally chemically
inert Except for plasticizers, they are unaffected by light, heat
and atmosphere. The remaining 10 percent of plastics addi-
tives is dominated by flame retardants.
Solvents
Solvents such as acetone, methyl ethyl ketone and metha-
nol are used in large quantities to clean equipment and tools.
Of these, acetone is the most widely used. Many fabricators
have begun to replace acetone with dibasic ester (DBE). DBE
is a mixture of the methyl esters of adipic, glutaric and
succinic acids that is both less volatile and less flammable
than acetone (Lucas 1988). Methylene chloride has been used
widely for cleaning because it is an effective solvent for many
cured resins, although its use has been declining due to health
and safety concerns. Styrene is reportedly used by some resin
manufacturers to clean equipment but is not used by fabrica-
tors.
Process Description
The most significant processing activity for this industry
involves the combination of polymerizing resin and reinforc-
ing material, resulting in a product with an excellent strength-
to-weight ratio. The reinforcing material is commonly
fiberglass. The resin and reinforcing material are either sprayed
onto a mold or the reinforcing material is coated with the
resin. The product is usually lighter than metal or wooden
products and is stronger than unreinforced plastic construc-
tion. Reinforced plastics products are fabricated using any of
several processes, depending on their size, shape and other
desired physical characteristics. The processes can be catego-
rized into three groups: (a) mold-based processes; (b) fiber-
glass coating-based processes; and (c) pultrusion. Table 2
gives the consumption of resin and reinforcement by process
in 1990.
Mold-Based Processes
The most common among the mold-based processes are
contact molding centrifugal casting, resin transfer molding
(RTM) and compression molding. A brief description of each
of these processes followed by a detailed description of the
general steps involved in the manufacture of molded fiber-
glass products is given below.
Contact molding is defined as a zero-pressure molding
method in which only one side is the mold surface. There are
two principal techniques — hand layup and sprayup. In the
hand layup process, the reinforcement is manually fitted to a
mold wetted with catalyzed resin mix, after which it is satu-
rated with more resin. Spray layup, or "sprayup," differs from
hand layup in that it uses mechanical spraying and chopping
equipment for depositing the resin and glass reinforcement.
In the centrifugal molding process, a cylindrical mold is
spun about its long axis. The reinforcement is laid in the mold,
resin is poured in, and the mold is turned. The laminate is
compressed against the mold to produce parts with smooth
surfaces and low void content.
In the RTM process, a skeletal "preform" of reinforce-
ment is positioned in a mold that is then clamped and injected
with a two-part thermoset system. RTM is becoming more
common where high product strength, cost effectiveness, and
production flexibility are critical factors (Wilder-1988).
Compression molding involves the use of two matched
dies to define the entire outer surface of the part When closed
and filled with a resin mix, the matched die mold is subjected
to heat and pressure to cure the plastic.
6
-------
Table 2. Consumption of Fiberglass -Reinforced Polyester
Resin by Process or Application (1990)
Millions of Pounds per Year
Process Resin Reinforcement
Molded
504
141
Filament-wound
108
81
Puitruded
108
91
Sheet (flat and corrugated)
168
50
Surface coating
19
0
Auto body
81
2
Cultured marble
126
0
Other
93
14
Export
.22
SL
1,227
379
Source: Fiberglass Fabrication Association
The steps involved in the manufacture of mold-based
fiberglass products are largely common to all of the above
processes. For illustrative purposes the major steps in the
spray up process are listed and explained below:
• Mold preparation
• Mold waxing
• Resin preparation
• Gelcoat application
• Fiberglass application
The sequence of operations in a typical spray mold-based
manufacturing process is shown in Figure 2.
Mold Preparation
At some plants, molds are constantly being built and
redesigned. These molds often require a fine finish and con-
siderable detail work. Most molds are made of wood with a
plastic finish. An epoxy resin system with filler is sometimes
used in the mold preparation, creating a clay-like material. For
short and prototype runs, a very hard, durable gypsum plaster
is sometimes used for making molds.
Mold Waxing
Mold waxing is done with paste wax and rags, similar to
waxing a car.
Resin Preparation
Most companies purchase pre-promoted resin. Generally,
the resin is stored either in a tank or 55-gallon drum and is
pumped from storage into spray or chopper guns. Filler and
pigment may be added to the resin in the tank or drum.
Solvent and catalyst are added through a separate feed line.
Gelcoat Application
Gelcoat is a pigmented resin containing approximately 35
percent styrene. Application to the product is with either an
air-atomized or airless spray gun, usually conducted in a spray
booth. The catalyst can be added to the resin by hand-mixing
a weighed amount into a container feeding die spray gun.
Alternatively, the catalyst can be injected through a separate
line into the gun head, where it mixes with the resin.
Fiberglass Application
For fiberglass molded products;, the viscous resin is either
mixed with, sprayed or brushed onto fiberglass reinforcing
material. Fiberglass comes in either a woven mat or cord-like
roving which is applied with resin during fabrication. Fillers
or thickeners can be stirred into the resin mix to provide
additional body.
Fiberglass Coating-Based Processes
Hie steps involved in the manufacture of fiberglass coat-
ing based processes are explained Ibelow. Coating-based pro-
cesses include sheet molding and filament winding. Filament
winding is die process of laying resin-impregnated fibers onto
a rotating mandrel surface in a precise geometric pattern, and
curing them to form the product Sheet molding involves the
coating (and subsequent curing) of resin on to a woven
material such as fiberglass matting. The production process
for a typical composite plastic manufactured through a coat-
ing-based process is shown in Figure 3. Specific unit opera-
tions are described in the following paragraphs (Calif. DHS
1989).
Epoxy Resin Pretreatment
In this step, the epoxy resin,, catalyst, any fillers, and
solvent are added to a reactor, then heated to start the resin-
curing process. The reactor must l>e washed and rinsed with
solvent between pretreatment batches, especially when con-
secutive pretreatment batches consist of different epoxy for-
mulations.
Resin Mixing
This step mixes resin, solvent, catalyst, filler, pigment,
and stabilizer to result in properties tailored for the product
being run. The batch quantity mixed is based on the quantity
of fabric to be .produced. Mixing the improper quantity can
generate excess resin waste, although mix can be covered and
stored in a cool room until it is used. Most mixes can be stored
for about 14 days at 45°F without adverse effect on product
quality. There are literally hundreds of possible mix types,
each determined by each customer requirements, which the
fabricator cannot control. The variety of resin mixes and strict
customer specifications are two major factors limiting efforts
to reduce and recycle wastes.
Fabric Coating and Heat Curing
The coating process begins Iby filling the treater pan,
which holds the resin that coats: the fabric. The specific
gravity of the resin mix must be adjusted by adding solvent at
a small reservoir tank upstream of the treater pan. During the
coating process, resin is continuously circulated between the
reservoir and the treater pan. The pan and associated piping
typically hold about 100 pounds of resin mix. The fabric to be
coated is loaded onto the unwind shafts. The fabric dips into
the pan and then passes between two metering rollers, which
squeeze the appropriate amount of resin into the fabric. The
operator controls the speed of the fabric through the mix pan,
the spacing of the rolls, and the final specific gravity of the
7
-------
resin. Improperly setting these parameters can result in offspec
material and a shortage or excess quantity of resin applied.
The coated fabric is then fed to the treater, which cures
the resin coating at an elevated temperature and evaporates
the solvent. The solvent-laden air stream may be passed
through a condenser for solvent recovery or burned in a
thermal oxidizer. While the condenser is preferable for waste
minimization, some plants may also need an oxidizer down-
stream of the condenser to meet local air emission limits. Heat
recovered from the thermal oxidizer may be used to cure the
composite in the treater. The cured composite is cooled before
it is wound on the final roll. At the end of a run, the resin pan
must be emptied and cleaned, and leftover solvated resin must
be recycled or managed as hazardous waste.
Slitting/Rewind
If products are required in 2-inch widths, then a full-
width product roll is slit and rewound into separate rolls of 2-
inch-wide tape. If a product roll is solid or rolled imperfectly
during production, the operator marks the damaged section
for removal during rewind.
Pultrusion
Pultrusion, which can be thought of as extrusion by
pulling, is used to produce continuous cross-sectional lineals
similar to those made by extruding metals such as aluminum.
Reinforcing fibers are pulled through a liquid resin mix bath
and into a long machined steel die, where heat initiates, an
exothermic reaction to polymerize the thermosetting resin
matrix. The composite profile emerges from the die as a hot,
constant cross-sectional that cools sufficiently to be fed into a
clamping and pulling mechanism. The product can then be cut
to desired lengths. Example products include electrical insula-
tion materials, ladders, walkway gratings, structural supports,
and rods and antennas (USEPA 1988).
Waste Description
The generation of hazardous wastes in the manufacture of
FRP/C plastic products is common to most fabricating pro-
cesses. These hazardous wastes include used containers con-
taminated with residual chemicals, spent cleaning solvent,
and wash-down wastewater. The quantities of waste gener-
ated range from one or two gallons per month to several tons,
depending on the products manufactured and the capacity of
the plant. The wastes and their process origins are listed in
Table 3.
Wax
Gelcoat
Wax Mold
Spray Gelcoat
Curing
Resin
Resin
Add Reinforcing
Materials
2nd Resin
Supply
Trim, Dry,
Separate Finished
Piece from Mold
1st Resin
Supply
Trim Edges
and Dry
Product
Scrap Mold
Figure 2. Block flow diagram—spray molding.
Adopted (torn California DHS1989.
8
-------
Vent
Wash/Rinse
Solvent
Additives
Pigments
Resins
Fillers
Catalysts
Solvent
Product
Scrap
Resins
Catalysts
Additives
Solvent
- to Disposal
Slitting/
Rewind
Thermal
Oxidizer
Treater
Treater
Pans
Solvent
Still
Mixing
Vats
Epoxy
Pretreatment
Reactor
Mixing
Reactor
Figure 3. Composites manufacturing flow diagram.
Adopted from California DHS1989
-------
Table 3.
Waste
Doscription
Fiberglass-Reinforced and Composite Plastics Fabrication Waste
Process Origin
Composition
Waste solvent
Empty resin and
solvent containers
Laboratory analysis
wastes
Cleanup rags
Pro-prog (previously
resin-Impregnated)
waste fabric
Empty plastic, paper
and cardboard containers
with residual peroxides,
glass routing and chemical
additives
Expired raw materials
Gelcoat and resin overspray
Scrap solvated resin
Partially-cured waste
resins
Volatile organic
compounds
Waste water
Hands, tool mold, and
equipment cleaning
Unloading of materials
into mixing tanks
Formulating and
testing
Equipment cleaning
operations
Leftovers from a particular
batch or scrapped when product
sample does not meet customer
specification
Unloading of raw materials
into process tanks
Raw material that has exceeded shelf
life or otherwise became unusable
Overspray during fabrication process
Residue from piping and treater pan
at the end of a run
Discontinued batch
Volatilized solvent and mold release
agents, during curing and open
vessels containing solvents
Equipment cleaning with emulsiliers
Resin-contaminated
solvent
Small amounts of residual
resin and solvent
Spent resins, solvents,
and finished and semi-
finished trial products
Solvents and small
amount of resins
Resins and fiberglass
substrate (including
minor quantities of
chemical additives)
Chemical additives
such as "Cab-O-Stt" and
aluminum trihydrate
Usually semi-solid
and self-cured resin
Resins, pigments, catalyst and
chemical additives
Resins and resin-
contaminated solvents
Contaminated and unusable
resin and solvents
Solvents and volatile
monomers (e.g. styrene)
Water with organic chemical
contaminants and emulsifier
Typical liquid hazardous wastes include spent cleaning
solvent from equipment cleanup, scrap solvated resin left over
in mix tanks, diluted resin from the treater pan, and partially-
curcd resin. The mix vessel and treater clean up waste solvent
is contaminated with resin from the cleaning. The scrap
solvated resin comes from the piping and treater pan at the end
of a run, and any residual resin mix that cannot be stored for
later use. The partially-cured resin generally results from a
small-quantity productrun that requires only a partial drumload
of a resin, leaving the rest as waste.
Primary solid wastes include: gelcoat and resin overspray
material that lands on the floor instead of on the mold; unused
raw material resin that has exceeded the shelf life date or
o therwise thickened beyond usefulness; raw material contain-
ers including plastic containers for organic peroxides, boxes
for glass roving, drums for gelcoat, paper bags for "Cab-O-
Sil" and aluminum trihydrate, and additives, and empty resin
and solvent drums; pre-preg waste fabric; clean-up rags; and
lab packs from research operations. Although the cost of
gelcoat and resin waste disposal is often small, the losses due
to unused and wasted raw material (resin and catalyst) are
quite significant.
From the standpoint of waste minimization and occupa-
tional exposure, two solid wastes are most significant These
are the gelcoat and resin overspray and the resin and gelcoat
waste that has thickened. The gelcoat overspray accumulates
as a paint-like coating wherever it settles and dries. Approxi-
mately 85 percent of the resin spray goes onto the mold and 15
percent ends up as waste (Calif. DHS 1989). Many fabricators
simply spread paper, usually treated with a fire-retardant, on
the floor to catch the overspray. Dried overspray is fully cured
and non-hazardous, so periodically the paper is collected and
sent to a landfill Some fabricators prefer to use sand on the
floor to further reduce the risk of fire. Although a few shops
use sawdust (Calif. DHS 1989), this practice is strongly
discouraged for safety reasons. Organic peroxide catalysts
react strongly with sawdust to cause a fire. Thickened gelcoat
and resin that is no longer suitable for spraying is solidified by
10
-------
mixing with catalyst, then discarded as a non-hazardous waste.
Similar waste is also obtained when the resin tank is cleaned,
which is often an annual occurrence. One study indicates that
for each 100 pounds of resin disposed of in this way, approxi-
mately $70 of raw materials are lost (Calif. DHS 1989).
Organic vapors consisting of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) are emitted from fresh resin surfaces during the fabri-
cation process and from the use of solvents (usually acetone)
for cleanup of tools, molds and spraying equipment. Organic
vapor emissions from fiberglass fabrication processes occur
when the polymerizing agents and solvents contained in the
liquid resin mix evaporate into the air during resin application
and curing. State-of-the-art techniques can economically re-
cover solvents in concentrations above 70 ppm, through acti-
vated caxbon adsorption. However, styrerie can polymerize on
the carbon and deactivate the adsorber. When solvent vapor
reclamation is not feasible, thermal oxidation of the solvent
emissions can be conducted with an oxidation efficiency
exceeding 97 percent, although the cost per ton of VOC is
quite high. There also may be some particulate air emissions
from automatic fiber chopping equipment.
Calif. DHS. 1989. Waste awiit study: fiberglass rein-
forced and composite plastics products. Report pre-
pared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Oakland,
CA for the California Department of Health Ser-
vices, Alternative Technology Section, Toxic Sub-
stances Control Division.
Dorsey, J.S. 1975. Using reinforced plastics for process
equipment. Chemical engineering. September 1975.
p. 104.
Fishman N. 1989. Structural composites a 1995 outlook.
Modern plastics. July 1989. p. 72.
Jones, W.R. and H.M. Simon. 1983. Synthetic plastics.
In: Rie gel's handbook of industrial chemistry, Eighth
Edition. Edited by J. A. Kent. p. 313.
Lucas, D. F. 1988. A new solvent for industrial cleaning.
Presented at 4th Annual HAZMAT Conference.
Rolston, J.A. 1980. Fiberglass composite and fabrication.
Chemical engineering. January 1980. p. 96.
Smoluk, G.R. 1988. Mineral reinforcements: now they
help to ease additive tighteners. Modern plastics.
July 1988. p 46.
USDC. 1989. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census. Miscellaneous plastics products, not else-
where classified: 1987 Census of Manufacturers MC
87-I-32A(p).
USEPA. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Poly-
ester resin plastics product fabrication: compilation
of air pollutant emission factors (AP-42). September
1988. p. 4.12-1.
Wilder, R.V. 1988. Resin transfer molding finally gets
real attention from industry. Modern plastics. July
1988. p. 48.
Wood, S.A. 1989. Thermoplastic polyester: more types
tailored to do tougher jobs. Modern plastics. July
1989. p. 42.
11
-------
/
-------
Section 3
Waste Minimization Options for Fiberglass-Reinforced and
Composite Plastics Fabricators
This section discusses waste minimization methods found
useful for ERP/C fabrication operations. These methods come
from the California DHS study, other accounts published in
the literature and through industry contacts. The primary
waste streams associated with FRP/C fabrication are listed in
Table 4, along with recommended control methods.
The waste streams are: equipment cleaning wastes; scrap
solvated and partially cured resin; gelcoat, resin and solvent
oversprays; resin and solvent contaminated floor-sweepings;
empty bags and drums; rejected and/or excess raw material;
cleanup rags; laboratory and research wastes and monomer
(resin) emissions due to the polymer-cross linking reaction.
The waste minimization methods listed in Table 4 can be
classified generally as source reduction, which can be achieved
through material substitution, process or equipment modifica-
tion, or better operating practices; or as recycling.
Many of the source reduction options available to com-
posite plastic product manufacturers only require better oper-
ating practices or minor in-plant process modification to
effect significant waste reduction and savings by virtue of I ess
wasted raw materials and offspec products. Better operating
practices are procedural or institutional policies that result in
reducing waste. They include:
• Waste stream segregation
• Personnel practices
Management initiatives
Employee training
Employee incentives
• Procedural measures
Documentation
Material handling and storage
Material tracking and inventory control
Scheduling
Table 4. Waste Minimization Methods for Fiberglass Reinforced and Composite Plastics Fabricators
Waste Stream Waste Minimization Methods
Equipment cleaning wastes
Restrict solvent issue. Maximize production runs. Store and reuse
cleaning wastes. Use less toxic and volatile solvent substitutes.
On-site recovery. Off-site recovery. Reduce rinse solvent usage.
Waste segregation.
Scrap solvated and partially cured resins
Modify resin pan geometry. Reduce transfer pipe size. Waste
exchange.
Gelcoat resin and solvent o versprays
Change spray design
Rejected and/or excess raw material
Improve inventory control Purchase materials in smaller
containers. Return unused materials to suppliers.
Resin and solvent contaminated floor sweepings
Use recyclable floor sweeping compound. Reduce solvent and
resin spillage and oversprays by employing alternate material
application and fabrication techniques.
Empty bags and drums
Cardboard recovery. Container recycling. Returnable contabers.
Use plastic liners in drums.
Air emissions
Improve/modify material application. Cover solvent containers.
Use emulsions or less volatile solvents.
Miscellaneous waste stream
Product/process substitution.
Cleanup rags
Efficient utilization of clean programs. Auto-cleaning process
equipment.
Laboratory and research wastes
Reduce quantities of raw material and products for testing and
analysis.
13
-------
Many of these measures are used in industry to promote
operational efficiency. In addition, they can often be imple-
mented at little or no cost to the facility. When one considers
the waste reduction potential, ease of implementation, and
little or no implementation cost, better operating practices
usually provide a very promising early focus area for any
waste minimization effort. They should be addressed before
proceeding with more difficult, technology-based measures.
In addition to the specific recommendations discussed
below, rapidly advancing technology makes it important that
companies continually educate themselves about improve-
ments that are waste reducing and pollution preventing. Infor-
mation sources to help inform companies about such
technology include trade :issociations and journals, chemical
and equipment suppliers, equipment expositions, conferences,
and industry newsletters. By keeping abreast of changes and
implementing applicable technology improvements, compa-
nies can often take advantage of the dual benefits of reduced
waste generation and a more cost efficient operation.
The following sections discuss the waste minimization
methods listed in Table 4 for specific waste streams.
Equipment Cleaning Wastes
Solvents are used to remove uncured resins from spray
equipment, rollers, brushes!, tools, and finished surfaces. Typi-
cal solvents used include acetone, methanol, methyl ethyl
ketone (MEK), toluene and xylene.
Acetone and other similar solvents are used for general
cleaning, as standard practice for most open-mold fabricators
of fiberglass products. To dean the spray equipment, acetone
is usually circulated through the lines after the spray operation
is shut down for the day. A simple but effective method
practiced by some fabricators to minimize wastes is placing
the containers of solvent near the resin spray area to prevent
spills and drippage for tool cleaning. Generally, the solvent is
reused until the high concentration of resin contamination
prevents effective cleaning. However, if the containers are left
uncovered, solvent will evaporate, increasing air emissions as
well as resin concentration.
Methylene chloride is an effective solvent for cured res-
ins, and has been used by plastics fabricators. Although many
other solvents have been tried, including multicomponent
mixtures, these have had mixed results. The best way to
minimize the need for this chemical is to clean equipment
before the resin dries.
Disposal of contaminated solvents represents a major
hazardous waste management expense. In addition, fugitive
air emissions during the curing and cleaning processes are
also of concern. Some of the potential waste reduction meth-
ods are described in the following paragraphs.
Restrict Solvent Issue
Many shops have limited the quantity of solvent issued
each shift and indicate this has reduced waste, although the
savings are difficult to quantify.
Maximize Production Runs
Production runs should be scheduled together to reduce
the need for equipment cleaning between batches. Consider-
ation should also be given to the potential for scheduling
families of products in sequence, so that cleanup between
batches can be minimized.
Store and Reuse Cleaning Solvents
Assessments performed at FRP/C fabricators indicate
that some plants collect spent solvents for reuse in cleaning
operations (Calif. DHS 1989). However, the solvents cannot
be reused if contaminants build up to levels that do not permit
effective cleaning.
Use Less Toxic and Less Volatile Solvents
Relatively less toxic and less volatile solvents that are
biodegradable, water-soluble, resin bed compatible and re-
coverable are commercially available as substitutes for the
conventional solvents used in the FRP/C industry. These
substitutes can be used in the curing process and/or for
cleaning, depending on the type of solvent For example,
dibasic ester (DBE) based organic solvents do not evaporate
as rapidly as acetone. When it spills during an operation; it
will remain until it is cleaned up, collected arid recovered by
distillation, thus reducing VOC emissions and increasing the
potential for reuse. One publication claimed a 60 percent
savings by using DBE instead of acetone (Lucas 1990). DBE
also does not have the fire hazard of acetone. Emulsifiers,
which can be used instead of solvents in some services, are
discussed in another section.
Reduce Solvent Rinse Usage
Substantial quantities of solvent are used for cleanout of
epoxy pretreaters, mix tanks and treater pans. Using small lab-
type wash bottles for treater pan cleanouts can reduce solvent
usage. Squeegee tools can also be used for the treater and
vessel cleanouts, so that a smaller amount of solvent can be
applied to the vessel to dissolve the remaining solvated resin.
The squeegee may also be pressed against the vessel walls to
force the remaining resin to the bottom of the pan or vessel for
collection. One study estimated that using squeegees could
reduce solvent requirement by 25 percent (Calif. DHS 1989).
Additionally, a two-stage cleaning process may be used,
where dirty equipment or a tool is first cleaned in dirty solvent
(stored in a separate container), followed by a clean rinse with
a smaller volume of fresh solvent, which is collected sepa-
rately. When the dirty solvent approaches the maximum level
of contamination, it should be removed for recycle and re-
placed with the accumulated "clean" rinse solvent.
Improving Recyclability of Solvent Waste
Solvent waste can be more easily recycled if the proce-
dure below is followed (Calif. DHS 1986):
• Segregate solvent wastes by separating:
chlorinated from nonchlorinated solvent
wastes;
14
-------
aliphatic from aromatic solvent wastes;
chlorofluoiocarbons from methylene chloride;
wastewater from flammables.
Keep water out of the waste solvents
Drums should be covered to prevent contamination with
water.
• Minimize solids
Solids concentrations should be kept at a minimum
to allow for efficient solvent reclamation.
• Control solvent concentration
Maintain solvent concentration above 40 percent.
• Label waste
Keep a chemical identification label on each waste
container. Record the exact composition and
method by which the solvent waste was generated.
On-site Solvent Recovery
Batch-type distillation units have proven to be successful
in meeting the needs of firms producing small-to-moderate
quantities of contaminated solvents such as acetone. Commer-
cially available sizes range from 5- to 55-gallon units. A basic
batch-type system consists of four major components: a con-
taminated solvent collection tank, a heated boiling chamber, a
condenser, and a clean solvent collection container. These
units are usually contained within a single compact cabinet, so
that the space required is generally less than that required for
storage of virgin solvents and contaminated waste. Initial
investment ranges from approximately $3,000 for a basic 5-
gallon unit to more than $30,000 for a relatively sophisticated
55-gallon unit with labor-saving automatic control systems
and pumps.
Large-volume generators of contaminated solvents may
find continuous-feed distillation equipment better suited to
their requirements than batch recovery units. Capacities for
these systems can range from 250 gallons per shift to as much
as 200 gallons per hour. Continuous units are not likely to be
economical for firms with recovery needs of less than 100
gallons per day, because installation costs for large units are
likely to exceed $50,000. The continuous-feed system con-
sists of the same components included in a batch-type distilla-
tion unit, with more elaborate controls and materials-handling
equipment. An automatic pumping system continuously trans-
fers contaminated solvents from storage to the boiling cham-
ber. Condensers may be either water- or air-cooled. The clean
solvent collection system must be equipped with a monitoring
system to avoid overflow.
Often, solvated epoxy is the only resin suited to the batch
distillation process. Non-epoxy resins (phenolic, polyamide,
and polyester) have lower flash points and are more suscep-
tible to runaway reactions. However, some fabricators have
reportedly used batch distillation successfully with polyester
resins. Reducing the solids content in solvated non-epoxy
resin streams may be possible with filtration, yielding the
same result without exceeding temperature constraints.
Off-site Solvent Recycling
Commercial solvent recycling facilities offer a variety of
services, ranging from operating a waste treatment/recycling
unit on the generator's property to accepting and recycling
solvent waste at a central facility. Some recyclers accept both
halogenated and non-halogenated isolvents, while others spe-
cialize in one or the other. Off-site commercial recycling
services are often well-suited to small quantity generators
(SQGs), who may not generate sufficient volume of waste
solvent to justify on-site recycling. The off-site services are
also attractive to generators who prefer to avoid the technical,
safety, and managerial demands of on-site recycling. How-
ever, off-site recycling has the disadvantage of potentially
high transportation costs and liability.
Replace Solvents With Emulsifiers
Some fabricators now use emulsifiers instead of organic
solvents. The emulsifier is an alkaline mixture of surfactants,
wetting agents and various proprietary ingredients which can
often be disposed of in the sewer. Advantages include: virtu-
ally no air emissions, biodegradability, and non-flammability.
Some suppliers claim emulsifiers last twice as long as sol-
vents. However, some emulsifier concentrates may contain
solvents, dissolved metals, silicate;; and phosphates that make
them unacceptable in some sewage systems. Different clean-
ing techniques must be employed when using emulsifiers, so
adequate instruction of both management and workers is
essential. Changing over from solvents to emulsifiers is easi-
est for hand and tool cleaning, which usually represents the
largest consumption of acetone (Halle and Brennan 1990).
One study indicated that emulsions are inadequate for cleanup
of gelcoat or cured resins (USEPA 1990a).
Scrap Solvated and Partially-Cured Resins
Modify Resin Pan Geometry
Pan widths should be no more than 10 inches wider than
the fabric. If a narrow width fabric is run in an unnecessarily
wide pan, additional solvated resin is wasted, since the wide
pan holds a larger quantity at the end of the treater run. To
alleviate this problem, simple adjusting devices made to fit
into the treater pan to reduce its volume may be installed. This
could consist of a plastic, wooden, or metal part molded to fit
into the end of the treater pan, which would occupy the treater
pan volume usually filled with resin but not required when
coating the narrow fabric.
Reduce Transfer Pipe Size
Typically, a long pipe connects the mix tank to the treater
tank. Each time a run ends the solvated resin in the treater pan
is discarded, along with the resin in the interconnecting pipe.
Significant resin savings can be realized by installing smaller
diameter pipe. However, this requires detailed hydraulic analy-
sis and possibly pump modifications to ensure that an accept-
able flow rate is maintained.
15
-------
Waste Exchange
Participation by a generator in a waste exchange program
to reduce the volume of hazardous wastes satisfies the waste
minimization certification requirement on the Uniform Haz-
ardous Waste Manifest. In addition to helping meet regulatory
requirements, participation in a waste exchange program pro-
vides the waste generator with an opportunity to explore
alternative waste management options that may lead to a more
cost-effective waste management program. Waste exchanges
(see Appendix B) are an effective vehicle for increasing
recycling and resource reuse opportunities, and can be an
important part of a company's overall strategy to manage
waste in an environmentally sound and cost-effective manner.
According to representatives of several plastic recycling com-
panies, there is a demand for thermoplastics, which can be
melted and reformed. Two wastes of the FRP spray mold and
composites industries appear to be particularly well suited for
waste exchange listings: partially-solidified resin and scrap
fiber.
Improve Material Application Procedures
Significant waste reduction can be achieved by optimiz-
ing material application processes. These processes include
spray delivery systems and non-spray resin application meth-
ods. The latter include prespray fiber reinforcing, in-house
resin impregnation, resin roller dispensers, vacuum bag mold-
ing processes and closed mold systems. Non-spray resin ap-
plication methods reduce material waste and other expenses,
in particular energy purchase cost Lower operating pressures
for spray delivery systems reduce the cost and maintenance of
pressure lines, pumps, controls, and fittings. Routine cleanup
of work areas is also reduced in terms of frequency and
difficulty. The advantages and disadvantages of both spray
and non-spray delivery systems are discussed below.
Gelcoat Resin and Solvent Overspray
Oversprays can be eliminated or reduced to a great extent
through simple techniques such as spray reorientation and
advanced measures such as equipment modification as dis-
cussed below.
Spray Orientation
Waste often accumulates around the bottom of sprayed
objects because the tip of the spray gun is directed down
toward the bottom of the object, rather than horizontally.
Likewise, it may be difficult for the operator to shoot the top
of high objects. If spraying is directed vertically instead of
horizontally to the top of the object, the spray dissipates as a
fine mist up to several feet away from the object Hence,
depending upon the shape of the objects, appropriate spray
orientations may be developed.
Spray Delivery Systems
Most open-mold fabricators of fiberglass products use
spray applicators for transferring and applying coatings, res-
ins, and fibers to the mold. Delivery systems used by FRP
fabricators include high-pressure air, medium-pressure air-
less, and low-pressure air-assisted airless spray guns. In the
order listed, the atomization and spray patterns become more
efficient, reducing excessive fogging, overspray, and
bounceback. Other key issues associated with these delivery
systems are as follows:
• The high-pressure air system is practically obsolete
due to the large amounts of expensive high pressure
compressed air required. Low styrene emissions lim-
its generally cannot be met using a high-pressure air
system.
• In the airless method, a pressurized resin stream is
electrostatically atomized through a nozzle. The
nozzle orifices and spray angle can be varied by
using different tips. Orifice size affects delivery effi-
ciency, with larger orifices resulting in greater raw
material loss. Airless spray guns are considered to be
very efficient in delivering resins to the work sur-
face, although excessive fogging, overspray and
bounceback may occur.
• The air-assisted technology modifies the airless gun
by introducing pressurized air on the outer edge of
the resin stream as it exits the pressure nozzle. The
air stream forms an envelope that forces the resin to
follow a controllable, less dispersed spray pattern.
Lower resin delivery pressure can be used since the
air assist helps distribute the resin. Low delivery
pressure also reduces fogging, overspray, and
bounceback, which in turn reduces raw material waste.
Since more resin ends up on the product, the amount
of spraying is reduced, leading to a reduction in
styrene air emissions. Some vendors claim 5 to 20
percent savings in the resin spray waste for an air-
assisted airless gun compared to a standard airless
gun.
Non-spray Resin Application Methods
While use of spray delivery of resins has become stan-
dard practice for most open-mold fabricators of fiberglass
products, alternative applications processes do exist Conven-
tional gun-type resin application systems are efficient in de-
livering large quantities of resins to the woik surface. Spray
delivery systems are also advantageous when the product
mold has many recesses or is convoluted. Non-spray applica-
tion techniques would be messy or even impossible in some
cases. However, other delivery techniques merit consideration
in other circumstances. The various non-spray resin applica-
tion methods are as follows.
. • Use of fiber reinforcements that are presaturated
with resins ("prepregs") offer a number of advan-
tages over conventional spray techniques. In particu-
lar, resin-to-fiber ratios can be strictly controlled,
atomization of pollutants is practically eliminated,
and cleanup and disposal problems are greatly re-
duced. The disadvantages of this process are higher
raw material cost, energy requirements for curing,
and the refrigerated storage needs of prepregs. There-
fore it is best suited for applications where extremely
high strength-to-weight-ratios are required and cost
factors are secondary.
16
-------
Impregnators appear to have considerable potential
for the reduction of pollution associated with open
molding operations. They provide the fabricator with
some of the advantages offered by prepregs while
using lower-cost polyester resins and fiberglass ma-
terials. Impregnators can be placed within the lami-
nation area of a plant and can be mounted in such a
manner as to feed resin-saturated reinforcing materi-
als directly to the molding operations. Conventional
resin pumps and catalyst-metering devices supply
resins to a roller-reservoir system. Woven fiberglass
is impregnated as it passes through this reservoir
system.
Resin roller dispensers can reduce material losses
due to excessive fogging, overspray, turbulence, and
bounceback. Low delivery pressures help maintain a
cleaner work area. External emissions and the need
for high levels of make-up air are also reduced with
this type of unit operation. Precisely-measured quan-
tities of resin and catalyst are pumped to a mixing
head, then to the roller at a relatively low pressurfe
(less than 100 psig). Very often, existing spray gun
equipment can be adapted to resin rollers (Davis
1987).
Vacuum bag molding is another technique that offers
several benefits. With the exception of the gelcoat,
resin delivery can be accomplished without atomiza-
tion. Since final distribution of the resin to all areas
of the layup is largely controlled by the vacuum, gel
coating is the only step in vacuum bag molding that
requires atomization of resin. Pumping or pouring
premixed catalyst and resin into a closed mold elimi-
nates fogging, bounceback, and overspray. Vapor
emissions and odor are further reduced by confining
the resins in the covered mold until curing is com-
plete. Excess resin can be trapped by bleeder mate-
rial placed under the vacuum bag. Dust-generating
secondary grinding operations are minimized be-
cause closed molding eliminates most flash removal
and edge smoothing requirements (USEPA 1990a).
Closed mold systems practically eliminate require-
ments for atomization of resins and may offer a
number of production advantages over conventional
approaches to molding. In closed mold processes,
catalyzed resins are pumped instead of sprayed, which
eliminates fogging, bounceback, and overspray. Va-
por emissions and odor are further reduced by con-
fining the resins in the mold until curing is complete.
There is little, if any, waste of resin. Even dust-
producing secondary grinding operations are reduced,
because the closed molding system eliminates most
trash removal and edge smoothing requirements. The
closed molding technologies most frequently applied
to production of fiberglass components are compres-
sion molding and resin transfer molding.
Rejected and/or Excess Raw Materials
Rejected and excess raw material wastes are generated
through improper operating procedures and inventory control.
Improper inventory control could result in two waste sources.
One is material that has been in stock so long that it has
exceeded its shelf life and must be; disposed of. The other is
material that is in stock but is no longer needed in carrying out
the function of the plant. Some of the specific options to
minimize wastes generated by way of rejected and excess raw
materials are detailed in the following paragraphs.
Tighter Inventory Control
The following actions should ireduce or prevent the gen-
eration of surplus inventory:
• Purchase materials used in large quantities in return-
able or reusable containers.
• Purchase only the quantity of special-purpose mate-
rials needed for a specific production run, so that no
material is left over.
• Use first-in/first-out (FIFO) inventory control.
• Check inventory before approval of new orders.
• Inquire whether suppliers; can take back unused or
expired materials. It is best done while placing large
orders or changing suppliers.
Computerized Inventory Control
Computerized raw material purchases and waste genera-
tion data can improve inventory control and identify areas for
waste minimization. A basic system can be set up using
widely available spreadsheet or database programs. Alter-
nately, more task-specific and user-friendly programs are
available from software companies such as Waste Documen-
tation and Control, Inc. (Beaumont, Texas) and Intellus Cor-
poration (Irvine, California).
Empty Bags and Drums
Raw material containers, such :as 30- and 55-gallon drums,
can be cleaned for reuse or nonhazardous waste disposal.
Many plants use the uncleaned empty drums to store and
dispose of other hazardous wastes such as contaminated sol-
vents, clean tags and empty packages. Options for minimizing
other container waste include container recycling, cardboard
recovery, returning containers for reuse, and solid waste seg-
regation.
Container Recycling
Acceptable practices for on-site management of drums
include cleaning of reusable containers and selling them to
scrap dealers or drum recycling firms. Some drums can be
returned to the chemical supplier for refilling. Used containers
may also be suitable for the storage of other wastes. The most
important aspect in reuse or recycling of drums is that they be
completely empty. One way to reduce the volume of waste is
17
-------
to use drums lined with a disposable liner that can be removed
when the drum is empty. Disposal of the plastic liner is much
easier than disposing of the drum, and eliminates the need for
drum cleaning. The number of containers and the associated
waste residuals can be greatly reduced by increasing container
size or converting to bulk handling altogether.
Cardboard Recovery
Cardboard cartons used to deliver glass roving can be
saved and sold to a paper recycling firm instead of being
thrown into the dumpster. Other paper waste suitable for
recycling includes empty Cab-O-Sil and aluminum trihydrate
bags and balsa wood cut-outs discarded from reinforcing
operations.
Solid Waste Segregation
An effective way of reducing hazardous waste associated
with packaging is to segregate the hazardous materials from
the non-hazardous materials. Non-hazardous packaging mate-
rial may be sold to a recycler. Empty packages that contained
hazardous material should be placed in plastic bags (to reduce
personnel exposure and eliminate dusting) and stored in a
special container to await collection and disposal as a hazard-
ous waste.
Air Emissions
Organic vapor emissions from polyester resin/fiberglass
fabrication processes occur when the monomer contained in
the liquid resin evaporates during resin application and cur-
ing. In addition, cleaning solvent emissions can account for
over 36 percent of the total plant VOC emissions. There also
may be some release of particulate emissions from automatic
fiber-chopping equipment. Potentially effective air emissions
reduction methods include improved material application pro-
cedures and changing resin formulation.
Improved Material Application Procedures
Emissions vary according to the way in which the resin is
mixed, applied, handled and cured. These factors vary among
the different fabrication processes. For example, the spray
layup process has the highest potential for VOC emissions
because atomizing resin into a spray creates an extremely
large surface area, from which volatile monomer can evapo-
rate. By contrast, the emission potential in synthetic marble
casting and closed-molding operations is considerably lower,
because of the lower monomer content in the casting resins
(30 to 38 percent, versus about 43 percent) and because of the
enclosed nature of these molding operations. It has been found
that styrene evaporation increases with increasing gel time,
wind speed and ambient temperature, and that increasing the
hand rolling time on a hand layup or sprayup results in
significantly higher styrene emissions. Thus, production
changes that lessen the exposure of fresh resin surfaces to the
air should be effective in*reducing these evaporation losses.
For a more detailed review of material application procedures,
sec waste minimization options described in the previous
section on gelcoat resin and solvent oversprays.
Changing Resin Formulation
In addition to production changes, resin formulation can
be modified to reduce the VOC emissions. In general, a resin
with lower monomer content should produce lower emissions.
Evaluation tests with low-styrene-emissions laminating resins
having a 36 percent styrene content found a 60 to 70 percent
decrease in emission levels, compared to conventional resin
(42 percent styrene), with no sacrifice in the physical proper-
ties of the laminate. Vapor suppressing agents (e.g. paraffin
waxes) also are sometimes added to resins to reduce VOC
emissions. Limited laboratory and field data indicate that
vapor suppressing agents reduce styrene losses by 30 to 70
percent (USEPA 1988).
Other techniques for reducing air emissions have been
described above. These include switching to less volatile
solvents or emulsifiers and covering solvent containers.
Miscellaneous Waste Streams
, Waste streams discussed in this section include floor
cleanup waste, equipment cleanup rags and laboratory wastes.
Control measures include the use of auto-cleaning equipment,
proper purchase of chemicals and reagents, and use of micro-
scale glassware.
Floor Cleanup Waste
Overspray is material that lands on the floor instead of in
the mold. Techniques to reduce the quantity of this waste have
been described previously (see Gelcoat Resin and Solvent
Overspray in this section). Fabricators employ some type of
floor covering to facilitate periodic cleanup of the work area,
and this represents an additional source of waste. Most fabri-
cators use heavy paper which has been treated with flame-
retardant, although some use sand. Since the dried residue is
non-hazardous the coverings may be discarded as a non-
hazardous waste. A few fabricators use sawdust to catch
overspray, but this practice is very risky. Organic peroxide
catalysts react vigorously with sawdust and are likely to cause
afire.
Equipment Cleanup Rags
Mechanized automatic resin-mixing and dispensing units
equipped with air valves to blow out excess materials are
commercially available. Contaminated exhaust air can be
captured and directed to existing air scrubbers for treatment.
Advantages of such units include reduced labor costs and
elimination of cleaning rags.
Laboratory Wastes
Purchasing quantities of specialty chemicals that are sel-
dom used in the smallest available amount helps to reduce
waste by insuring that the material will more likely be con-
sumed before its shelf life expires. The purchasing agent
should consider the cost of disposal of over-age material
before deciding to purchase in large quantities. Many tests can
be redesigned to use micro-scale glassware to reduce waste
generation. Micro-scale testing volumes range from 1 to 10
18
-------
ml, compared to conventional testing, which may require 50
to 100 ml (USEPA 1990b).
References
Calif. DHS. 1989. Waste audit study: fiberglass rein-
forced and composite plastics products. Report pre-
pared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Oakland,
CA, for the California Department of Health Ser-
vices, Alternative Technology Section, Toxic Sub-
stances Control Division.
Calif. DHS. 1986. Guide to solvent waste reduction alter-
natives. Final Report. Prepared by ICF Consulting
Associates, Inc. for California Department of Health
Services, Alternative Technology and Policy Devel-
opment Section.
Davis, D. 1987. Pollution reduction strategies in the
fiberglass boatbuilding and open mold plastics in-
dustries. Prepared by Department of Manufacturing,
East Carolina University. Greenville, N.C.
Halle, Reidar and J. A. Brennan. 1990. Replace acetone
successfully - a practical guide. Fabrication news.
Fiberglass Fabrication Association. April 1990.
Lucas, D. F. 1990. The effective solvent alternative. In:
CM3, Marble Con '90, Charlotte, NC. February 22,
1990.
Modern Plastics. 1989. Additives cope with new tech-
nology (Editorial). Modern plastics. September 1989.
p. 63.
Todd, W.F. and S.A. Shulman. 1984. Control of styrene
vapor in a large fiberglass boat manufacturing opera-
tion. American industrial hygiene association jour-
nal 45(12):817-825.
Toensmeier, P.A. 1988. FRP fabrication becomes more
efficient, safer. Modern plastics. December 1988.
p. 84.
Toensmeier P.A. 1989. Crackdown on VOC emissions
spark sweeping composite improvements. Modern
plastics. December 1989.
Toy, W.M. 1987. Waste audit study - automotive repairs.
Prepared for Alternative Technology Section, Cali-
fornia Department of Health Services. May 1987.
USEPA. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Poly-
ester resin plastics product fabrication: compilation
of air pollutant emission factors (AP-42). September
1988. p. 4.12-1.
USEPA. 1990a. Assessment of VOC emissions from fi-
berglass boat manufacturing. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Air and Energy Engineering Re-
search Laboratory. EPA/600/S2-90/019.
USEPA. 1990b. Guides to pollution prevention: research
and educational institutions. Prepared by Jacobs En-
gineering Group Inc. for U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory.
EPA/625/7-90/010. .
Wilder, R.V. 1989. Smart feeders and blenders make
zero defect quality. Modern plastics. November
1989. p. 44.
Woods, S.A. 1990. Tough new materials give a lift to
thermoplastic composite sheet. Modern plastics. Feb-
ruary 1990. p. 38.
19
-------
-------
Section 4
Waste Minimization Assessment Worksheets
The worksheets provided in this section are intended to
assist FRP/C fabricators in systematically evaluating waste
generating processes and in identifying waste minimization
opportunities. These worksheets include only the waste mini-
mization assessment phase of the procedure described in the
Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessments Manual. A com-
prehensive waste minimization assessment includes a plan-
ning and organization step, an assessment step that includes
gathering background data and information, a feasibility
study on specific waste minimization options, and an imple-
mentation phase. For a full description of waste minimiza-
tion assessment procedures, please refer to the manual.
Table 5 lists the worksheets included in this section. After
completing the worksheets, the assessment team should
evaluate the applicable waste minimization options and
develop an implementation plan.
Tables.
List of Waste Minimization Assessment Worksheets
Number
Title
Description
1.
Waste Sources
Typical wasteu generated at FRP/C
fabricating plants.
2.
Waste Minimization: Material Handling
Questionnaire on general material
handling techniques.
3.
Waste Minimization: Material Handling
Questionnaire on procedures used
for bulk liquid handling.
4.
Waste Minimization: Material Handling
Questionnaire on procedures used for
handling drums, containers and
packages.
5.
Option Generation: Material Handing
Waste minimization options for material
handling.
6.
Waste Minimization: Material
Substitution and Chopping/Grinding
Operations
Questionnaire on material substitution
and chopping/grinding operations.
7.
Waste Minimization: Cleaning Operations
Questionnaire on solvent cleaning
operations.
8.
Option Generation: Material
Substitution/Process Operations
Waste minimization options for material
substitution and modification of process
operations.
9.
Waste Minimization: Good Operating
Practices
Questionnaire on use of good operating
practices.
10.
Option Generation: Good Operating
Practices
Waste minimization options that are
good operating practices.
11.
Waste Minimization: Reuse and Reco very
Questionnaire on opportunities for reuse
and recovery of wastes.
21
-------
Firm
Waste Minimization Assessment
Prnj Nln
Prepared By
Checked By
Sheet nf
Sitfi
Pane nf
WORKSHEET
1
WASTE SOURCES
Waste Source: Material Handling
Significance at Plant
Low
Medium
High
Off-spec materials
Obsolete raw materials
Obsolete products
Spills & leaks (liquids)
Spills (powders)
Empty container cleaning
Container disposal (metal)
Container disposal (paper, plastic)
Pipeline/tank drainage
Laboratory wastes
Evaporative losses
Other
Waste Source: Process Operations
Tank cleaning
Container cleaning
Blender cleaning
Process equipment cleaning
Gelcoat overspray
Resin overspray
Solvent overspray ,
Other
-
ws fiber 01
22
-------
Firm.
Site .
Date
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No.
Prepared By
Checked By
Sheet of Page.
-of.
WORKSHEET
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Material Handling
A. GENERAL HANDLING TECHNIQUES
Are all raw materials tested for quality before being accepted from suppliers?
~ yes ~ no
Describe safeguards to prevent the use of materials that may generate off-spec product:
Is obsolete raw material returned to the supplier?
Is inventory used in first-in first-out order?
Is the inventory system computerized?
Does the current inventory control system adequately prevent waste generation?
~ yes
~ yes
~ yes
~ yes
~ no
~ no
~ no
~ no
What information does the system track?-
~ yes
~ no
Is there a formal personnel training program on raw material handling, spill prevention,
proper storage techniques, and waste handling procedures?
Does, the program include information on the safe handling of the types of drums, containers
and packages received?
~ yes ~ no
How often is training given and by whom? ,
Is dust generated in the storage area during the handling of raw materials?
If yes, is there a dedicated dust recovery system in place?
Are methods employed to suppress dust or capture and recycle dust?
Explain:
~ yes
~ yes
~ yes
~ no
~ no
~ no
vs liber 02
23
-------
Firm.
Site .
Date
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No
Prepared By
Checked By
Sheet of Page of.
WORKSHEET
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Material Handling
B. BULK LIQUIDS HANDLING
What safeguards are in place to prevent spills and avoid ground contamination during the transfer and filling of
storage and blending tanks?
High level shutdown/alarms ~ Secondary containment ~
Flow totalizers with cutoff ~ Other ~
Describe the system:
Are air emissions from solvent storage tanks controlled by means of:
Conservation vents ~ Absorber/Condenser ~ Adsorber ~
Nitrogen blanketing ~ Other vapor loss control system ~
Describe the system:
Are all storage tanks routinely monitored for leaks? If yes, describe procedure and monitoring frequency for
aboveground/vaulted tanks:
Underground tanks: ________
How are the liquids in these tanks dispensed to the users? (i.e., in small containers or hard piped.)
What measures are employed to prevent the spillage of liquids being dispensed? |
Are pipes cleaned regularly? Also discuss the way pipes are cleaned and how the resulting waste is handled:
When a spill of liquid occurs in the plant, what cleanup methods are employed (e.g., wet or dry)? Also discuss the
way in which the resulting wastes are handled:
Would different cleaning methods allow for direct reuse or recycling of the waste? (explain):
ws fibor 03
24
-------
Firm.
Site -
Date
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No.
Prepared By
Checked By
Sheet of—Page.
.of.
WORKSHEET
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Material Handling
C. DRUMS, CONTAINERS, AND PACKAGES
Are drums, packages, and containers inspected for damage before being accepted?
Are employees trained in ways to safely handle the types of drums & packages received?
Are they properly trained in handling of spilled raw materials?
Are stored items protected from damage, contamination, or exposure to rain, snow, sun &
Describe handling procedures for damaged items:
Heavy traffic increases the potential for contaminating raw materials with dirt or dust and
for causing spilled materials to become dispersed throughout the shop.
Does the layout result in heavy traffic through the raw material storage area? ~ yes J no
Can traffic through the storage area be reduced? ~ yes ~ no
To reduce the generation of empty bag & packages, dust from dry material handling, and liquid wastes from
cleaning empty solvent drums, has the plant attempted to:
Purchase hazardous materials in preweighed containers to avoid the need for weighing?
Use reuseable/recyclable drums with liners instead of paper bags?
Use larger containers or bulk delivery systems that can be returned to supplier for cleaning?
Dedicate systems in the loading area to segregate hazardous
from non-hazardous wastes?
Recycle the cleaning waste into a product?
Discuss the results of these attempts:
Are all empty bags, packages, and containers that contained hazardous materials segregated
from those that contained non-hazardous materials? Describe method currently used to dispose of this waste:
~
yes
~
no
~
yes
3
no
~
yes
~
no
~
yes
~
no
~
yes
~
no
~
yes
~
no
~
yes
~
no
~
yes
~
no
~
yes
~
no
ws liber 04
25
-------
Waste Minimization Assessment
pmj Mn
Pre
Ch
Sh
>par«ri Ry
orUoH Ry
sot nf Pago nf
WORKSHEET
5
OPTION GENERATION:
Material Handling
Meeting Format (e.g., brainstorming, nominal group techn
Mfislinn Coordinator
ique)
Moating Participants
Suggested Waste Minimization Options
Currently
Done Y/N?
Rationale/Remarks on Option
A. General Handling Techniques
Quality Control Check
Return Obsolete Material to Supplier
Minimize Inventory
Computerize Inventory
Formal Training
B. Bulk Liquids Handling
High Level Shutdown/Alarm
Flow Totalizers with Cutoff
Secondary Containment
Air Emission Control
Leak Monitoring
Spilled Material Reuse
Cleanup Methods to Promote Recycling
C. Drums, Containers, and Packages
Raw Material Inspection
Proper Storage/Handling
Preweighed Containers
Soluble Bags
Reusable Drums
Bulk Delivery
Waste Segregation
Reformulate Cleaning Waste
ws liber 05
26
-------
Firm.
Site .
Date
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No.
Prepared By
Checked By
Sheet of Page.
-of.
WORKSHEET
6
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Material Substitution
Process Operations
A. MATERIAL SUBSTITUTION
Are any of the formulation and preparation materials used in the plant considered
hazardous (e.g., chlorinated solvents)? ~ yes ~ 'no
If so, can other less or non-hazardous materials substitute for the hazardous materials? ~ yes ~ no
(example: low styrene resin, non-hazardous solvents, mold release agents and additives)
Have you tried cleaning with emulsifiers instead of solvents? ~ yes ~ no
Describe results of any substitution attempts:
B. PROCESS OPERATIONS
Are dust suppression/collection systems employed during fabrication?
Is this dust collected and recycled or reused?
Would the installation of a dedicated baghouse or other type of dust collection system
allow for reuse?
Explain how dusts are handled and the potential for reuse:
~ yes O no
~ yes ~ no
~ yes Q no
Use recyclable adsorbent to collect overspray that lands on the floor?
Is the adsorbent that is used to collect the solvent and resin oversprays tested for
reuse potential and recycled?
Decribe results of attempts to reuse adsorbent: '
~ yes ~ no
~ yes ~ no
C. CLEANING
Is solvent cleaning done on a once-through basis between process batches? ~ yes ~ no
Has solvent cleaning been attempted with a smaller volume of solvent, to reduce overall
solvent use? ~ yes ~ no
Do you routinely clean equipment before residual resin cures? ~ yes ~ no
Describe the results of attempts to use smaller volumes of solvent in repeated cleaning:
1 ~
ws liber 06
27
-------
Firm.
Site -
Date
WORKSHEET
7
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No.
Prepared By
Checked By
Sheet of—Page.
-of.
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Cleaning Operations
What methods are used to clean mixing tanks?:
Dry Clean up (rags)
Air Blowing
Solvent Cleaning
Water Cleaning
Solvent-Based
~
~
~
~
Water-Based
~
~
~
~
Explain how these wastes are handled and the potential for their reuse:
To reduce the generation of waste, has the shop attempted to:
Employ vapor recovery systems to reduce solvent air emissions?
~
yes
~
no
Equip tanks with wipers to reduce clingage?
~
yes
~
no
Employ pressure washers to reduce cleaning solution usage?
~
yes
no
Reuse cleaning solutions for primary cleaning or as part of a compatible formulation?
~
yes
~
no
Equip hoses with spray nozzles to reduce water used for floor washing?
~
yes
~
no
(if water-based cleaning agents are used?)
Dedicate equipment to reduce the need for cleaning?
~
yes
~
no
Use some of the solvent or water that should be added to the formulation to clean the
preceding equipment before adding to the mix tank?
~
yes
~
no
Segregate wastes so that their reuse potential is increased?
~
yes
~
no
Discuss the results of methods employed or attempted-.
ws Itoor 07
28
-------
Fifrn
Waste Minimization Assessment
Pmj Nn
Pre
Ch
Sh
^par«ri By..
sit°
firkfirt Ry
Bfit nl PagA nf
WORKSHEET
8
OPTION GENERATION:
Material Substitution
Process Operation
Meeting Format (e.g., brainstorming, nominal group techn
Meetina Coordinator
ique^
Meeting Participants
Suggested Waste Minimization Options
Currently
Done Y/N?
Rationale/Remarks on Option
A. Substitution/Reformulation Techniques
Solvent Substitution
Product Reformulation
Other Raw Material Substitution
B. Chopping/Grinding
Dust Suppression/Collection
Dedicated Baghouse
Use Less Cleaning Media
Test for Reuse Potential
C. Cleaning
Vapor Recovery
Tank Wipers
Pressure Washers
Reuse Cleaning Solutions
Spray Nozzles on Hoses
Mops and Squeegees
Reuse Rinsewater
Reuse Cleaning Solvent
Dedicate Equipment
Clean with Part of Batch
Segregate Wastes for Reuse
ws fiber 08
29
-------
Firm.
Site -
Oate
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No.
Prepared By
Checked By
Sheet of Page.
-of.
WORKSHEET
9
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Good Operating Practices
A. PRODUCTION SCHEDULING TECHNIQUES
Is the production schedule varied to decrease waste generation? (For example, do you maximize size of
production runs and minimize cleaning by accumulating orders or producing for inventory?)
Describe:_
Does the schedule include sequential formulations that do not require cleaning between batches?
If yes, indicate results: ; ;
Are there any other attempts at eliminating cleanup steps between subsequent batches? If yes, results:
B. AVOIDING OFF-SPEC PRODUCTS
Is the batch formulation attempted in the lab before large-scale production?
Are laboratory QA/QC procedures performed on a regular basis?
~ yes
~ yes
~ no
~ no
C. GOOD OPERATING PRACTICES
Are plant material balances routinely performed?
~
yes
~
no
Are they performed for each material of concern (e.g. solvent) separately?
~
yes
~
no
Are records kept of individual wastes with their sources of .origin and eventual disposal?
~
yes
~
no
Are the operators provided with detailed operating manuafs or instruction sets?
~
yes
~
no
Are all operator job functions well defined?
~
yes
~
no
Are regularly scheduled training programs offered to operators?
~
yes
~
no
Are there employee incentive programs related to waste minimization?
~
yes
~
no
Does the plant have an established waste minimization program in place?
~
yes
~
no
If yes, is a specific person assigned to oversee the success of the program?
~
yes
~
no
Discuss goals of the program and results:.
Has a waste minimization assessment been performed at this plant in the past? If yes, discuss:
ws libor 09
30
-------
Firm
Waste Minimization Assessment
Prnj Nn
Pre
Ch
Sh
parftfl Ry
Site
or.kfid Ry
not rif Pago nf
WORKSHEET
10
OPTION GENERATION:
Good Operating Practices
Meeting Format (e.g., brainstorming, nominal group techn
Meetina Coordinator
ique)
Meeting Participants
Suggested Waste Minimization Options
Currently
Done Y/N?
Rationale/Remarks on Option
A. Production Scheduling Techniques
Increase Size of Production Bun
Sequential Formulating
Avoid Unnecessary Cleaning
Maximize Equipment Dedication
B. Avoiding Off-Spec Products
Test Batch Formulation in Lab
Regular QA/QC
C. Good Operating Practices
Perform Material Balances
Keep Records of Waste Sources & Disposition
Waste/Materials Documentation
Provide Operating Manuals/Instructions
Employee Training
Increased Supervision
Provide Employee Incentives
Increase Plant Sanitation
Establish Waste Minimization Policy
Set Goals for Source Reduction
Set Goals for Recycling
Conduct Annual Assessments
ws liber 10
31
-------
Firm
Site
Date
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No.
Prepared By
Checked By
Sheet of Page.
.of
WORKSHEET
11
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Reuse and Recovery
A. SEGREGATION
Segregating wastes improves prospects for reuse and recovery.
Are different solvent wastes due to equipment clean-up segregated?
Are aqueous wastes from equipment clean-up segregated from solvent wastes?
Are spent alkaline solutions segregated from the rinse water streams?
If no, explain: ;
~
yes
~
no
~
yes
~
no
~
yes
~
no
B.
ON-SITE RECOVERY
On-site recovery of solvents by distillation is economically feasible for as little as 8 gallons of
sotvent waste per day.
Has on-site distillation of the spent solvent ever been attempted?
If yes, is distillation still being performed?
If no, explain:
~ yes
~ yes
~ no
~ no
C.
CONSOLIDATION/REUSE
Are many different solvents used for cleaning?
~
yes
~
no
If yes, can the solvent used for equipment cleaning be standardized?
~
yes
~
no
Is spent cleaning solvent reused?
~
yes
~
no
Are there any attempts at making the rinse solvent part of a batch formulation (rework)?
~
yes
~
no
Are any attempts made to blend various waste streams to produce marketable products?
~
yes
~
no
Are spills collected and reworked?
~
yes
~
no
Describe which measures were successful:
Has off-site reuse of wastes been considered (e.g. waste exchange services or commercial
brokerage firms)?
If yes, results: .
~ yes ~ no
ws fibor 11
32
-------
Appendix A
Case Studies of Fiberglass-Reinforced and Composite Plastic Fabricators
In 1989, the California Department of Health Services
commissioned Woodward-Clyde Consultants to conduct a
waste minimization study of FRP/C fabricators (DHS 1989).
The objectives of the waste minimization assessments were
to:
• Gather site-specific information concerning the gen-
eration, handling, storage, treatment, and disposal of
hazardous wastes;
• Evaluate existing waste reduction practices;
• Develop recommendations for waste reduction
through source control, treatment, and recycling tech-
niques; and
• Assess costs/benefits of existing and recommended
waste reduction techniques.
Hie first steps in conducting the assessments were the
selection of the FRP/C fabricators, and contacting the plants
to solicit voluntary participation in the study. Plant selection
emphasized small businesses that generally lack the financial
and/or internal technical resources to perform a waste reduc-
tion assessment One relatively large plant was also selected
for study because it offered the opportunity to evaluate a wide
variety of fabrication operations, as well as a number of in-
place waste reduction measures.
This Appendix presents both the results of the assess-
ments of two plants, here identified as A and B, and the
potentially useful waste minimization options identified
through the assessments. Also included are the practices al-
ready in use at the plants that have successfully reduced waste
generation from past levels. During each of the plant assess-
ments, the assessment team observed fabrication processes;
inspected waste management facilities; interviewed the plant
manager, environmental compliance personnel, and opera-
tions supervisors; and reviewed and copied records pertinent
to waste generation and management.
Summary of Assessments Findings
From the assessments that were conducted, it was evident
that employee knowledge of waste streams, waste minimiza-
tion approaches and the hazardous waste regulatory structure
varied greatly. The larger plant had an engineering staff and
had some mechanisms in place to track total hazardous waste
generation. The smaller plant did not have trained technical
staff, so most of the technical expertise came from on-the-job
experience or vendor contacts. Records of hazardous waste
generation were sketchy, and then; was little understanding of
the importance of waste minimization. Accurate material bal-
ances could not be prepared because of inadequate records.
The original assessments may be obtained from Mr.
Benjamin Fries at:
California Department of Heiilth Services
Alternative Technology Division
Toxic Substances Control Program
714/744 "P" Street
Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
(916) 324-1807
In addition, the results of the waste assessments were
used to prepare waste minimization assessment worksheets to
be completed by other FRP/C fabricators in a self-assessment
process. Examples of completed worksheets are included at
the end of this Appendix.
Plant A Waste Minimization Assessment
Plant Description
Plant A produces coated composite sheeting which con-
sists of two distinct parts, the substrate and the coating. The
substrate is usually a woven mate rial such as fiberglass mat-
ting or paper. The coating is a synthetic resin. The combina-
tion of these two materials results in a product with high
strength-to-weight ratio, which makes it a valuable starting
material for the aerospace and transportation industries, which
make up approximately 60 percent of Plant A's business.
Many types of sporting goods, siuch as pole vaulting poles,
skis, and golf club shafts, also use the composite sheets as a
raw material.
Raw Material Management
Raw materials include fabrics, resins, catalysts and cur-
ing agents, additives and property modifiers, and solvents.
Fabrics. The fabric usually comes on rolls 38 to 72 inches
wide, typically woven. Frequently-used materials are Kevlar,
glass, graphite, nylon, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), and paper.
Resins. Plant A uses over 109 resins, classed broadly as
epoxy, polyamide, polyester, or phenolic. More than 70 per-
33
-------
cent used are types of epoxies, while the other types are
approximately 10 percent each. The epoxy comes in either
liquid or solid form. The solid form is supplied in jacketed
totes, so it can be melted as required by connecting steam to
the outer jacket The most frequently-used liquid epoxy resin
is bought in bulk and stored in an underground tank on site.
The other resins are supplied in liquid form in drums.
Catalysts and Curing Agents. Various catalysts and cur-
ing agents are added in the mix batch in very small amounts to
promote curing of the resin.
Additives and Modifiers. Additives and modifiers include
pigments, flow inhibitors, fillers, fire retardants, surfactants,
hardeners and plasticizers. They are also added to the mix
resin batch in very small amounts and give the product a
certain property as their descriptive names indicate.
Solvents. Solvents are used in large quantities for diluting
the resin mix and for equipment cleanup. Acetone, methyl
ethyl ketone, and methanol are used most frequently and
stored in underground tanks. Other solvents are supplied in
drums. The approximate proportion used is 45/45/10 percent
acetone, MEK, and methanol, respectively.
Processes
There are five main processes at the plant:
• Epoxy resin pre treatment;
• Resin mixing;
• Fabric coating/heat curing;
• Epoxy-contaminated solvent recycling;
• Slitting and rewind.
The storage of raw materials and waste is another major
operation.
Epoxy Resin Pretreatment
In this pretreatment step for epoxy resins, the epoxy,
catalyst, any fillers, and solvent are added to a reactor and
heated to start the resin curing process. The reactor must be
washed and rinsed with solvent between pretreatment batches,
especially when two consecutive pretreatment batches are
different epoxy formulations. After pretreatment, the resin is
transferred to the mix tank area by gravity piping.
Resin Mixing
The resin mix instructions contained in Plant A's Resin
Mixing Standards give the weight of each chemical in the mix
(resin, catalyst, filler, pigment, stabilizer, etc.), the order of
addition, time of mixing, and any special instructions or safety
precautions. The mix tanks are portable vessels that are trans-
ported by forklift to the treater area for processing. The
maximum mix is approximately 2,200 pounds, with a resin
solids content of approximately 70 percent Mixing consists
of combining three to four individually mixed solutions for
one to five hours.
It is the mix house operator's responsibility to mix the
proper quantity of mix resin for the corresponding fabric
yardage requiring coating. Ten percent of the customers allow
Plant A to overrun an order by 10 percent and 90 percent
allow the order to be underrun by 10 percent. Mixing the exact
quantity becomes more critical as the production run becomes
smaller. When the run requires only one mix tank batch,
mixing the improper quantity for the run will either leave
excess solvated resin or require that a small additional mix is
made in order to complete die run. If the run is more than one
batch all the mixes except the last one do not require exact
quantities.
After the mix is made, it is covered and stored in a cool
room if it is not to be used right away. Most mixes can be
stored for about 14 days at 45TF without adverse affect on
product quality.
Plant A runs literally hundreds of possible mix types that
are determined by customer requirements. The variety of resin
mixes and strict customer quality specifications are two major
factors affecting efforts to reduce and recycle wastes at Plant
A.
Fabric Coating and Heat Curing
The specific gravity of the resin mix from the previous
step must be adjusted by adding solvent at a small reservoir
tank upstream of the treater pan. The treater pan holds the
resin that coats the fabric. During the coating process, ap-
proximately 110 pounds of resin are continually circulated
between the reservoir and the treater pan.
The coating process begins by filling the treater pan. The
fabric to be coated is loaded onto the unwind shafts. The
fabric dips into the pan and then passes between two metering
rollers which squeeze the appropriate amount of resin into the
fabric. The operator controls the speed of the fabric through
the mix pan, the spacing of the rolls, and the final specific
gravity of the resin. Improper setting for these parameters can
result in offspec material and also a shortage or excess quan-
tity of resin, since the mix quantity was calculated assuming
specific values for these process variables. One mix tank of
resin is usually sufficient to coat fabric for eight to ten hours.
The coated fabric is then fed to the treater to cure the resin
coating at an elevated temperature. The curing heat drives off
the solvent, and the solvent-laden air stream is burned in a
thermal oxidizer prior to release to the atmosphere. Heat
recovered from the thermal oxidizer is used to cure the
composite in the treater. The cured composite is cooled before
it is wound on the final roll.
Slitting/Rewind
Some products are required in 2-inch widths, so that a
regular width product roll is slit into separate rolls of 2-inch-
wide tape. Also, if a product roll is soiled or rolled imperfectly
during production, the operator marks the damaged section so
it can be removed. The good portions of the roll are rewound
by the rewind operator.
34
-------
Waste Generation, Handling, and Disposal
At the end of a run, the resin pan is emptied and cleaned.
The leftover solvent resin is disposed of as hazardous waste if
it is non-epoxy based, or sent to the recovery still if it is
epoxy-based. Plant A has estimated that each cleaning aver-
ages 12 gallons of solvent for non-colored resin batches and
30 gallons for colored batches. The cleaning process takes
approximately 20 to 30 minutes.
Solvent Recycling
Solvated epoxy resin scrap from the treater process and
epoxy-contaminated rinse solvent from the epoxy pretreat-
ment reactor, mixing vat, and resin pan cleanings are recycled
through the solvent recovery still. Polyester, polyamide, and
phenolic resin or wash solvent cannot be recycled in the still
because the fire hazard and runaway reaction risk are too
great Epoxy resin composites account for 70 percent of the
Plant A production, so that a large percentage of solvent in
scrap resin and from cleaning operations is currently recycled.
Recycled solvent can be used for vessel cleanouts in the
production of military/aerospace products, but cannot be added
directly to the resin mix at the mix house or in the dilution step
at the treater. Recycled solvent can be added directly to the
resin during processing of Plant A's sporting goods product
line, since quality control specifications are not as strict as for
aerospace products.
Chemical and Waste Storage
Plant A has a dedicated storage room where the drummed
resins, solvents, and drummed hazardous wastes are stored.
Hie site also has areas for empty drum storage and dry
chemical storage, finished goods storage, and a warehouse for
raw material fabric storage. Acetone, MEK, methanol and the
most frequendy used epoxy resins are stored on site in under-
ground storage tanks. Plant A is registered under RCRA as a
hazardous waste generator, and accumulates wastes up to 90
days for bulk shipment -
Assessment Findings and Recommendations
The assessment team made the following recommenda-
tions to help minimize wastes.
Use squeegees to reduce rinse solvent usage
Modify resin pah
Reduce treater pan delivery pipe size
Reuse rinse solvent
Recover rinse solvent by distillation
These techniques are described and economics are pre-
sented in the subsequent paragraphs.
Use squeegees to reduce rinse solvent usage , .>
A typical economic evaluation of reduction in solvent
rinse use using the squeegee cleaning system is summarized
in Table A-l. Costs for additional time required for each
vessel cleaning, and a one-time operator training program are
subtracted from the raw material and disposal cost savings
due to reduced solvent usage to give the total cost savings.
Total monthly cost savings were estimated at more than
$3,700 and the calculated payback period was slightly under
one month (Calif. DHS, 1989).
Modify resin pan
, *. The treaters often handle fabrics 32 to 72 inches wide. A
pan width 10 inches wider than the fabric is required. If fabric
is run in a wider pan, solvated resin is wasted. It was recom-
mended that a simple adjustable device be made to fit into the
treater pan, so the operator would only have to insert and
remove the device as required by the fabric width.
- Table A-2 summarizes a typical production match be-
tween fabric and treater pan width. The average excess width
was 22.4 inches per treater before implementing waste reduc-
tion technique. Table A-3 shows am example where the avoid-
able waste due to excess pan width was 51,500 pounds of
solvated resin per year, equal to & raw material and disposal
cost savings of $91,700 per year.
Reduce pipe size from mix tank to treater pan
Approximately 8 feet of 2-inch diameter pipe connect the
mix tank and the treater tank. At ithe completion of each run
the solvated resin in the treater pan was discarded, along with
the resin in the pipe. The flow rate does not justify the 2-inch
size. The reason for the 2-inch pipe was that some of the resins
are more viscous and require a fairly large pipe size to prevent
plugging. Average epoxy resin viscosity is 1000 cp.
The volume per linear foot of 2-inch pipe is 164 percent
greater than that of 1 1/2 inch pipe., If the 11/2 inch size could
be used for the less viscous resins, approximately 1270pounds
of resin per year could be saved for six treaters. The process
change would require installation of a parallel run of 1 1/2-
inch pipe and valving to allow the operator to select the pipe
size for resin delivery based on the resin mix viscosity. The
payout period for the system, based on being able to use the
smaller pipe one sixth of the time, was 27 months. Table A-4
shows the economic evaluation for the modifications.
Reuse rinse solvent
If the used solvent for non-colored resin batches were
stored and reused once instead of 1>eing discarded or sent to a
recycling still, a substantial reduction in operating costs, raw
material costs, and hazardous waste disposal costs could be
realized. The operational changes required to realize this
opportunity are:
1. Treater rinsing would be divided into two steps: an
initial rinse with recycled solvent followed by a final
rinse with fresh solvent. The first rinse should be sent
to the disposal still or collected for disposal as haz-
ardous waste. The second rinse should be sent to the
recycling still or collected, stored and reused.
2. A procedure for segregating non-epoxy from epoxy
rinse solvents is required, since non-epoxy rinse
solvent cannot be recycled because of the risk of a
runaway reaction.
35
-------
Table A-1 Economic Evaluation of Solvent Rinse Use Reduction
In tfi/s example, current total solvent use per month is determined from a knowledge of the quantity of non-epoxy solvent (NES) disposed of
each month. This known disposal quantity is proportional; since the plant produces 70% epoxy resin-based products and 30% non-epoxy
resln-based products, the total amount of solvent rinsate is in the same proportion. *
Current solvent use per month
» 16,888 lb rinsate/month x rinses/0.3 NES rinses x gal/0.8 x 8.34 lb
" 8,400 gal/month
Volume of solvent saved @ 25% use reduction
* 2,100 gkl/month
RAW MATERIAL SAVINGS (RMS)
RMS - 2100 gal x 0.45 (acetone) x 0.792(8.32)($0.23Zlb) = $1,400
2100 gal x 0.45 (MEK)x0.792(8.32)($0.365/lb) = $2,300
2100 gal x 0.10 (methanol) x0.792(8.32)($0.96/lb) = $1.300
TOTAL = $5,000/month
DISPOSAL COST SAVING (DCS)
DCS m 2100 gal x 0.3 NES rinse/a; rinse x 0.8 x 8.32 lb/gal x $0.14/lb.
*> $590/month
LABOR COST INCREASE (LCI)
LCI - 15 additional minutes/cleanout x 339 cleanouts/month x $22/60 minutes of labor
m $1,865/mon1h
MONTHLY COST SAVINGS (MCS)
MCS - $5,000+ $590-$1,865
* $3,725/month
OPERATOR TRAINING COST (OTC)
OTC = 15 operators x 8 hours x$22/hour
$2,700
PAYBACK PERIOD (PP)
PP » $2700/3725per month
« 3 weeks
TabloA-2.
Fabric and Troater Pan Width Match
Composite
Fabric Width
TreaterPan
Percent of
Excess
Excess Inches
(inches)
Width (inches)
Productiorf
Inchesi*
of One Treater"
32
60
40%
18
7.2
38
78
20%
30
6
50
84
15%
24
3.6
44
84
5%
30
1.5
50
86
9%
26
2.35
60
86
11%
16
1.76
AVERAGE EXCESS
22.4
* These percentages represent actual fabric width versus pan width from. Plant A production records for January through September 1987.
* 'Excess Inches"is the difference between pan and fabric width, minus the 10-inch clearance required by the machinery.
e This column is equal to 'Percent of Production" column multiplied by the "Excess Inches" column. For example, the 32-inch fabric width is
equivalent to 0.4x18 = 7.2 composite excess inches.
36
-------
Table A-3. Economic Evaluation of Reducing Treater Pan Waste
DESIGN BASIS
No. of treater deanouts for 9 month period 1369
Average excess per treater cleanout (from Table A-2) 22.4 in.
Wetted cross-sectional area of treater par? 0.22 ft*
Specific gravity of treater resin 1.1
Waste reduction per excess inch 1.26 lbs
of treater pan
Cost of raw material $1.64/ib
Cost of incineration disposal $0.14/lb
Investment to modify treater pan $1000
RAW MATERIAL SAVINGS (RMS)
RMS = 22.4 inches/treater cleanout x 1.26 lb resin waste reduction/excess inch x 1369 treater cleanouts/9 months x 12 mo/year x $1.64Ab
= 51,500 lb/year x$1.64/lb
= $84,500/year
DISPOSAL COST SAVINGS (DCS)
DCS m 51,500 ib/yr x $0.14/lb = $7,210/year
NET SAVINGS = RMS + DCS = 84,500 + 7,210 = $91,710/year
PAYOUT PERIOD = $1,000/91,700 per year =0.011 years or about 3 days
' Assumes a 4"x 8" wetted cross-sectional area
Table A-4. Economic Evaluation of Reducing Pipe Size to Treater Pan
DESIGN BASIS
2-Inch Pieg 1-1/2-inch Pioe
Gallons per Lineal Foot 0.1743 0.1058
Total Gallons, 8 Feet of Pipe 1.39 0.85
ASSUMPTIONS FOR ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Additional Gallons/Treater Cleanout 0.54
Treater Cieanouts/Day 6
Operating Days/Year 256
Disposal Cost for Solvated Resin $0.14/lb
Raw Material Cost for Solvated Resin $1.64
Resin in Solvated Resin 65%
Specific Gravity of Solvated Resin 1.1
Frequency of Smaller Pipe use Every 6th Treater (Once per day)
RAW MATERIAL AND DISPOSAL SAVINGS (RMADS)
RMADS = 256 days/yr x 0.54 gal/day x 1.1 x 8.33 lb/gal
1,269 Ib/yr x$1.78/lb
$2,258/yr
INVESTMENT REQUIRED
Installed
Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
Pipe 8 feet, 1 1/2" pipe $550/100 feet $ 44
Elbows 4 $55/each 220
Tees 2 $ 70/each 140
Valves 4 $ 150/each 600
$1,004
TOTAL COST for 5 treaters $ 5,020
PAYOUT PERIOD (PP) = $5,020/$2,258per year=2.22 years or 27 months
37
-------
3. Additional storage tanks, pumps and piping would
be installed in the treater building, with separate
tanks for the non-epoxy and epoxy rinse solvents.
Collection of rinsates from the mix vessel and epoxy
pretreater at the Mix House would have to be done
manually. Rinsate from the final rinsing step using
clean solvent should be collected from the treater or
Mix House and delivered to the recycled solvent
tanks for reuse in the subsequent first rinsing step.
Hie estimated capital and operating costs for the solvent
reuse system are shown in Table A-5, with one-time operator
training costs included in the investment. It was assumed that
labor costs for bringing the solvent to and from the reused
solvent storage tanks in the Treater Room would equal the
time now spent getting the solvent from the current tanks and
taking it in the drums to the hazardous waste storage area.
Based on using 4,280 gallons per month of solvated epoxy
resin, this change would reduce the amount of waste solvent
incinerated by 1,270 gallons per month. This represents a cost
saving of $5,070 per month on raw materials and disposal
cost. In addition, the cost of operating the recycling still
would be reduced about $1,100 per month. Thus, the total
savings would be $6,170 per month. The payout period for the
$14,100 investment would be 2.3 months or about 10 weeks
Plant B Waste Minimization Assessment
Plant Description
Plant B uses a mold-based process to manufacture shower
stalls, radomes, airport runway markers and bus bumpers.
Raw materials used in the manufacture of these products
include general purpose (GP). liquid polyester resin, liquid
polyester gelcoat resin, catalyst, glass fiber, additives, rein-
forcing materials, and solvents.
Process Description
The process employed at Plant B consists of a series of
steps by which successive layers of various materials are
applied to a mold. The first step requires waxing the mold
with a mold release agent, followed by spraying the mold with
gelcoat to a uniform thickness. The gelcoat forms the surface
coating of the product that is exposed when the completed part
is separated from the mold. A catalyst is atomized into the
gelcoat stream as the resin exits the spray gun.
After the gelcoat has set, the first coat of GP polyester
resin and glass roving is applied to the mold. The resin is
applied with a spray gun similar to the gelcoat gun, except that
the orifice tip is usually smaller, and a chopper attachment is
added to deliver glass fiber approximately 1-1/2 inches long
into the resin stream. When the first coat has become tacky,
the edges of the mold are trimmed, and, if required, reinforc-
ing materials added to the piece.
A second GP resin/glass roving coat is added after the
first coat has set. In some cases this second coat is made fire
retardant by mixing aluminum trihydrate into the resin batch.
After spraying the second GP resin coat, the edges are trimmed
of excess resin while the resin is still tacky. Sufficient addi-
tional drying time must pass until the resin totally sets, then
the finished object is removed from the mold.
Ttblo A-5. Capita! and Operating Coat* for Recovered Solvent System
CAPITAL COSTS
Installed
llm. Quantity Unit Cost Cost
Pumps 2 $2000/pump $4,000
500gallon tanks 2 $2000Aank 4,000
Pipo and fittings to the 5 treater 1500 feet $176/100 ft 2,650
stations 1/2'pipe
TOTAL CAPITAL COST $11,400
Operator training 2,700
TOTAL INVESTMENT $14,100
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Power (2 pumps @ ihp, running 2 hours per day)
Maintenance (5% of capital cost)
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST
$ 75
570
£645
38
-------
Waste Generation, Handling, and Disposal
1. Plant B uses an airless spray system for GP resin
delivery and has recently installed an air-assisted
airless gun for gelcoat delivery. These changes will
considerably reduce the generation of wastes.
2. Cleaning operations at the plant generate enough
waste solvent to make recycling practical. Plant B
has a small batch still, but it does not appear to be
used on a regular basis. The still was observed to
take approximately 6 hours to recycle 3 gallons of
acetone, whereas design specifications indicated the
period should have been less than 2 hours. The
condenser cooling water flow was set at only 1/2-
gallon per hour, which seemed low.
Assessment Findings and Recommendations
Improve Recycling Still Operation
The recycling still manufacturer was contacted and ques-
tioned about proper operating conditions'and typical causes of
malfunction of the unit. Hie most likely source of malfunction
was identified to be the jelling of the heat transfer media. The
manufacturer also recommended that the cooling water flow
setting should be approximately 30 gallons per hour. The
still's heat transfer media was checked and replaced, and the
cooling water rate reset according to the manufacturer's in-
structions. Assuming a cycle time of 7.5 hours, a power cost
of 10 cents/KWH and 80 percent recovery of solvent, the cost
of recycling acetone at the plant was estimated to be approxi-
mately 6 cents per gallon of acetone recovered, compared to
$1.80 per gallon for virgin solvent. An annual savings of
$2,100 would result from solvent recycling at this plant No
labor cost was assumed in the calculation, since the operation
was performed as part of the normal duties of the operator's
workday. Other expenses include disposal of still bottoms,
replacement of heat transfer fluid, and equipment mainte-
nance. These operating costs will generally be less than SO
cents pa* gallon, and some manufacturers claim costs under
20 cents per gallon.
Raise the Mold to Reduce Overspray
Raw material costs for overspray were estimated at $16.10
per shower stall. Based on an average production rate of 10
stalls per day, this loss amounted to $38,640 per year. The
assessment team expected that raising the mold would reduce
overspray by at least 25 percent, saving $9,660 per year. The
total investment for the necessary modifications to the rolling
carts which handle the mold was estimated to be $400. These
modifications,'which could be made with a small capital and
labor investment, also required that the operator use ladders or
similar equipment when spraying the top of the object. It was
assumed that the labor costs for shooting the objects would
probably increase slightly at first, as the operators adjusted to
the new situation but no long-term labor difference would
result. Based on these estimates, the payback period would be
10 days.
39
-------
Firm
Waste Minimization Assessment
Pmj Nn
Prepared By
Checked By
Rhant nf
a/,
Silo . ..
Panfl / nf If
¦j WASTE SOURCES
Waste Source: Material Handling
Significance at Plant
Low
Medium
High
Off-spec materials
,/
Obsolete raw materials
,/
Obsolete products
,/
Spills & leaks (liquids)
/
Spills (powders)
,/
Empty container cleaning
Container disposal (metal)
/
Container disposal (paper, plastic)
V
Pipeline/tank drainage
1/
Laboratory wastes
/
Evaporative losses
V
1/
Other
Waste Source: Process Operations
Tank cleaning
1/
Container cleaning
\/
Blender cleaning
/
Process equipment cleaning
,/
Gelcoat overspray
/
Resin overspray
,/
Solvent overspray
/
Other
ws libsf 01
40
-------
Firm.
Site .
Date
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No.
Prepared By
Checked By.
Sheet of Page of J J
WORKSHEET
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Material Handling
A. GENERAL HANDLING TECHNIQUES
Are alt raw materials tested for quality before being accepted from suppliers?
Describe safeguards to prevent the use of materials that may generate off-spec product:.
~ yes IJa no
Is obsolete raw material returned to the supplier?
Is inventory used in first-in first-out order?
Is the inventory system computerized?
Does the current inventory control system adequately prevent waste generation?
~ yes n/no
tpf yes Q no
~ yes !BT no
(0 yes ~ no
What information does the system track?
Is there a formal personnel training program on raw material handling, spill prevention,
proper storage techniques, and waste handling procedures?
Does the program include information on the safe handling of the types of drums, containers
and packages received?
(j/'yes ~ no
~ yes
no
How often is training given and by whom? YEflRpf- fif HAZAff/tf cowrRQt-,
; ; :
Is dust generated in the storage area during the handling of raw materials?
If yes, is there a dedicated dust recovery system in place?
Are methods employed to suppress dust or capture and recycle dust?
Explain:
~ yes BKno
~ yes U no
~ yes (2^no
ws liber 02
41
-------
Firm.
Sits -
Date
WORKSHEET
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No.
Prepared By
Checked By.
Sheet of.
.Page 3 nf //
WA3TEMINIMIZATION;
Material Handling
B. BULK LIQUIDS HANDLING
What safeguards are In place to prevent spills and avoid ground contamination during the transfer and filling of
storage and blending tanks?
High level shutdown/alarms ~ Secondary containment
Flow totalizers with cutoff ~ Other ~
Describe the system: MB.——S /}MTfTlPS -f[/[(f) Of]—
Pcvfr/ftftf/Vf Q//tX ,
Adsorber ~
Are air emissions from solvent storage tanks controlled by means of:
Conservation vents ~ Absorber/Condenser ~
Nitrogen blanketing ~ Other vapor loss control system
Describe the system:/! M7p/? If) (\jjfQN Of
:
Are all storage tanks routinely monitored for leaks? If yes, describe procedure and monitoring frequency for
aboveground/vaulted tanks: /fZ&Aj.. fa AT EifFRY
amy ymr — . -
Underground tanks: NjA
flow are the liquids in these tanks dispensed to the users? (i.e., in small containers or hard piped.)
Al/A : :—;
What measures are employed to prevent the spillage of liquids being dispensed? A^fi*}
Are pipes cleaned regularly? Also discuss the way pipes are cleaned and how the resulting waste is handled:
Af/A
When a spill of liquid occurs in the plant, what cleanup methods are employed (e.g., wet or dry)? Alsp discuss the
way in which the resulting wastes are handled: /YfAfEp }£\i. f J)/JS.
mkH for '
Would different cleaning methods allow for direct reuse or recycling of the waste? (explain)' I i@L
m fiber 03
42
-------
Firm.
Site .
Date
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No.
Prepared By
Checked By ¦
Sheet.—of— Page f nf //
WORKSHEET
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Material Handling
C. DRUMS, CONTAINERS, AND PACKAGES
Are drums, packages, and containers inspected for. damage before being accepted?
Are employees trained in ways to safely handle the types of drums & packages received?
Are they properly trained in handling of spilled raw materials?
Are stored items protected from damage, contamination, or exposure to rain, snow, sun &
Describe handling procedures for damaged items! /)/)/$/)/a £70. P()(/~I(J\
«/
yes
~ no
/
yes
~ no
m
*
yes
~ no
9/
yes
~ no
mm id {ifjrjytfiY w Pwzik< star :
Heavy traffic increases the potential for contaminating raw materials with dirt or dust and if.
for causing spilled materials to become dispersed throughout the shop.
Does the layout result in heavy traffic through the raw material storage area? ~ yes \/f10
Can traffic through the storage area be reduced? ~ yes no
To reduce the generation of empty bag & packages, dust from dry material handling, and liquid wastes from
cleaning empty solvent drums, has the plant attempted to:
Purchase hazardous materials in preweighed containers to avoid the need for weighing? yes ~ no
Use reuseable/recyclable drums with liners instead of paper bags? ~ yes [U^no
Use larger containers or bulk delivery systems that can be returned to supplier for cleaning? ~ yes tB^no
Dedicate systems in the loading area to segregate hazardous
from non-hazardous wastes? ~ yes %/uo
Recycle the cleaning waste into a product? ~ yes ©'"no
Discuss the results of these attempts:/^ !A/^ICrfl^Q n
Are all empty bags, packages, and containers that contained hazardous materials segregated
from those that contained non-hazardous materials? Describe method currently used to dispose of this waste:
OF TflpOCOtetf -
-HAr-AQttKtf mxtk mtfAGtMesn —
ws liber 04
43
-------
Firm
Waste Minimization Assessment
Prnj Nr>
Pre
Ch
fili
iparorl Ry
-------
Firm.
Site -
Date
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No.
Prepared By.
Checked By _
Sheet .of._
. Page (p of (f
WORKSHEET
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Material Substitution
Process Operations
yes
~ yes
A. MATERIAL SUBSTITUTION
Are any of the formulation and preparation materials used in the plant considered
hazardous (e.g., chlorinated solvents)?
If so, can other less or non-hazardous materials substitute for the hazardous materials?
(example: low styrene resin, non-hazardous solvents, mold release agents and additives)
Have you tried cleaning with emulsifiers instead of solvents?
Describe results of any substitution attempts Of UR) N(^ /\fffj
ZMtSftCTORY, A&z ST}L-L iA/^11CtATWC? JMimiAlS
a/
yes
~ no
vf no
~ no
yes
~ yes
~ no
no
B. PROCESS OPERATIONS
Are dust suppression/collection systems employed during fabrication?
Is this dust collected and recycled or reused?
Would the installation of a dedicated baghouse or other type of dust collection system
allow for reuse? CI yes no
Explain how dusts are handled and the potential for reusa:OMt~Y ZfyAcL COUrfZOfef) f
m PRArflCM -TV (UXf/lU
Use recyclable adsorbent to collect overspray that lands on the floor?
Is the adsorbent that is used to collect the solvent ?nd resin oversprays tested for
reuse potential and recycled?
Decribe results of attempts to reuse adsorbent:
~ yes no
~ yes no
yes
C. CLEANING
Is solvent cleaning done on a once-through basis between process batches?
Has solvent cleaning been attempted with a smaller volume of solvent, to reduce overall
solvent use?
Do you routinely clean equipment before residual resin cures?
Describe the results of attempts to use smaller volumes of solvent in repeated cleaning: Qf-
is smcL "HAW WL" 1/e.kV Smali n?
So We MS AR&
yes
~ yes
~ no
Q no
~ no
ws liber 06
45
-------
Firm.
Silo -
Dale
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No.
Prepared By ;
Checked By ;
Sheet of Page J/L_of i /
WORKSHEET
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Cleaning Operations
What methods are used to clean mixing tanks?:
Dry Clean up (rags)
Air Blowing
Solvent Cleaning
Water Cleaning
~
xf
~
~
~
~
~
Explain how these wastes are handled and the potential for their reuse: A
To reduce the generation of waste, has the shop attempted to:
Employ vapor recovery systems to reduce solvent air emissions?
Equip tanks with wipers to reduce clingage?
Employ pressure washers to reduce cleaning solution usage?
Reuse cleaning solutions for primary cleaning or as part of a compatible formulation?
Equip hoses wjth spray nozzles to reduce water used for floor washing?
(if water-based cleaning agents are used?)
Dedicate equipment to reduce the need for cleaning?
Use some of the solvent or water that should be added to the formulation to clean the
preceding equipment before adding to the mix tank?
Segregate wastes so that their reuse potential is increased?
Discuss the results of methods employed or attamptfiri¦/<$
umifr ins '' THtM nKW&sa we Ms-
Wftfif'lGATiNG -TH6 Of A
~
yes
tif no
~
yes
©f' no
~
yes
O^no
£K' yes
~ no
~
yes
no
~
yes
no
~
yes
^ no
~
yes
SK'no
j$ysT& M i
ws liber 07
46
-------
Firm
Waste Minimization Assessment
Prnj Nr>
Pf€
Ch
»pareflRy.
Silo
ar.\
-------
Firm.
Site -
Data
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No.
Prepared By
Checked By
Sheet of
of Page ^ of j/
WORKSHEET
9
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Good Operating Practices
A. PRODUCTION SCHEDULING TECHNIQUES
Is the production schedule varied to decrease waste generation? (For example, do you maximize size of
production runs and minimize cleaning by accumulating orders or producing for inventory?)
Describe: :
Does the schedule include sequentiaLformulations that do not require cleaning between batches?
If yes. indicate results: f\hl R. e p Q jQf<< Mffl&RlA/iS
tyf, haw A/o *
Are there any other attempts at eliminating cleanup steps between subsequent batches? If yes, results:
B. AVOIDING OFF-SPEC PRODUCTS
Is Ihe batch formulation attempted in the lab before large-scale production?
Are laboratory QA/QC procedures performed on a regular basis?
^ yes
yes
~ no
~ no
C. GOOD OPERATING PRACTICES
Are plant material balances routinely performed?
~
yes
GJ/no
Are they performed for each material of concern (e.g. solvent) separately?
~
yes
CjKno
Are records kept of individual wastes with their sources of origin and eventual disposal?
~
yes
0^ no
Are the operators provided with detailed operating manuafs or instruction sets?
t/
yes
~ no
Are all operator job functions well defined?
~
yes
(iKno
Are regularly scheduled training programs offered to operators?
~
yes
5X' no
Are there employee incentive programs related to waste minimization?
~
yes
~K'no
Does the plant have an established waste minimization program in place?
~
yes
Of no
If yes, is a specific person assigned to oversee the success of the program?
~
yes
~ no
Discuss goals of the program and results: MI I Z-flrlKD /]/ -pfjj./?/ Q&IM/Z
:
Has a waste minimization assessment been performed at this plant in the past? If yes, discuss:
ws libor 09
48
-------
Firm
Waste Minimization Assessment
Prnj Kin
Pre
Ch
parnd Ry
Site
finked By
n=>to
ftAt nf Panfi )/f\ nf If
WORKSHEET
10
OPTION GENERATION:
Good Operating Practices
Meeting Format (e.g., brainstorming, nominal group techn
Meetina Coordinator
ique)
Meeting Participants
Suggested Waste Minimization Options
Currently
Done Y/N?
Rationale/Remarks on Option
A. Production Scheduling Techniques
Increase Size of Production Run
ar/A
Sequential Formulating
__ y
(!
A M
Avoid Unnecessary Cleaning
Maximize Equipment Dedication
!J
Af -M
B. Avoiding Off-Spec Products
Test Batch Formulation in Lab
y
Regular QA/QC
y
/
C. Good Operating Practices
Perform Material Balances
Keep Records of Wasle Sources & Disposition
y
Waste/Materials Documentation
/
Provide Operating Manuals/Instructions
Employee Training
N
Increased Supervision
N
Provide Employee Incentives
Af
Increase Plant Sanitation
V
Establish Waste Minimization Policy
Set Goals for Source Reduction
V
Set Goals for Recycling
Af
Conduct Annual Assessments
y
/
ws liber 10
49
-------
Firm
Site
Date
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No. .
Prepared By _
Checked By _
Sheet of.
Page
WORKSHEET
11
'WASTE! MINIMIZATION:
Reuse and Recovery
A.
SEGREGATION
Segregating wastes improves prospects for reuse and recovery.
Are different solvent wastes due to equipment clean-up segregated?
Are aqueous wastes from equipment clean-up segregated from solvent wastes? M/A
Are spent alkaline solutions segregated from the rinse water streams? ff ffi,
If no. explain: /{//y4
£J/1yes
~ yes _ .
~ yes
~ no
'no
B.
ON-SITE RECOVERY
On-site recovery of solvents by distillation is economically feasible for as little as 8 gallons of
solvent waste per day.
Has on-sile distillation of the spent solvent ever been attempted?
If yes, is distillation still being performed?
If no, explain: <5 fi.V f.M
:
C. CONSOLIDATION/REUSE
Are many different solvents used for cleaning?
If yes, can the solvent used for equipment cleaning be standardized?
Is spent cleaning solvent reused?
Are there any attempts at making the rinse solvent part of a batch formulation (rework)?
Are any attempts made to blend various waste streams to produce marketable products?
Are spills collected and reworked?
Describe which measures were successful:
~ yes
~ yes
no
~ no
GHLqRi/)#
~
yes
~
yes
~
yes
~
yes
~
yes
~
yes
no
~ no
(B^rio
Qy'rio
V.
10
no
Has off-site reuse of wastes been considered (e.g. waste exchange services or commercial
brokerage firms)?
If yes, results: CUftft&fTjCy / IVTQ POSX/fiji i-f/6£
2K*yes ~ no
-0£
SF.flVlCgS,
wsItoor11
50
-------
Appendix B
Where to Get Help
Further Information on Pollution Prevention
Additional information on source reduction, reuse and
recycling approaches to pollution prevention is available in
EPA reports listed in this section, and through state programs
and regional EPA offices (listed below) that offer technical
and/or financial assistance in the areas of pollution prevention
and treatment.
Waste exchanges have been established in some areas of
the U.S. to put waste generators in contact with potential users
of the waste. Twenty-four exchanges operating in the U.S. and
Canada are listed.
U.S. EPA Reports on Waste Minimization
Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment Manual.
EPA/625/7-88/003.•**
Waste Minimization Audit Report: Case Studies of Corrosive
and Heavy Metal Waste Minimization Audit at a
Specialty Steel Manufacturing Complex. Executive
Summary. NITS No. PB88-107180*
Waste Minimization Audit Report: Case Studies of Minimi-
zation of Solvent Waste for Parts Cleaning and from
Electronic Capacitor Manufacturing Operation.
Executive Summary. NTIS No. PB87-227013*
Waste Minimization Audit Report: Case Studies of Minimi-
zation of Cyanide Wastes from Electroplating Opera-
tions. Executive Summary. NTIS No. PB87-229662.*
Report to Congress: Waste Minimization, Vols. 1 and II.
EPA/530-SW-86-033 and -034 (Washington, DC.:
u.sjepa,i986).**
Waste Minimization - Issues and Options, Vols. I-III.
EPA/530-SW-86-041 through -043. (Washington,
D.C.: U.S.EPA.1986.**
* Executive Summary available from EPA, CERI Publications Unit, 26
West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH, 4S268; full report
available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S.
Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161.
" Available from the National Technical Information Service as a fiVe-
volume set, NTIS No.PB-87-114328.
Available from EPA, CERI Publications Unit, 26 West Martin Luther
King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268. (513) 569-7562.
The Guides to Pollution Prevention manuals*** describe
waste minimization options for specific industries. This is a
continuing series which currently includes the following titles:
Guides to Pollution Prevention Paint Manufacturing
Industry. EPA/625/7-90/005
Guides to Pollution Prevention The Pesticide Formulating
Industry. EPA/625/7-90/004
Guides to Pollution Prevention The Commercial Printing
Industry. EPA/625/7-90/008
Guides to Pollution Prevention The Fabricated Metal'
Industry. EPA/625/7-90/006
Guides to Pollution Prevention For Selected Hospital Waste
Streams. EPA/625/7-90/009
Guides to Pollution Prevention Research and Educational
Institutions. EPA/625/7-90/010
Guides to Pollution Prevention The Printed Circuit Board
Manufacturing Industry. EPA/625/7-90/007
Guides to Pollution Prevention The Pharmaceutical Indus-
try. EPA 625/7-91/017
Guides to Pollution Prevention The Photoprocessing
Industry. EPA 625/7-91/012
Guides to Pollution Prevention The Automotive Repair
Industry. EPA/625/7-91/013
Guides to Pollution Prevention The Automotive Refirushing
Industry. EPA/625/7-91/016
Guides to Pollution Prevention The Marine Repair Industry.
EPA 625/7-91/015
U.S. EPA Pollution Prevention Infamation Clearinghouse
(PPIC): Electronic Information Exchange System
(EIES)—User Guide, Version 1.1. EPA/600/9-89/086
51
-------
Waste Reduction Technical/Financial
Assistance Programs
The EPA Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse
(PPIC) was established to encourage waste reduction through
technology transfer, education, and public awareness. PPIC
collects and disseminates technical and other information
about pollution prevention through a telephone hotline and an
electronic information exchange network. Indexed bibliogra-
phies and abstracts of reports, publications, and case studies
about pollution prevention are available. PPIC also lists a
calendar of pertinent conferences and seminars; information
about activities abroad and a directory of waste exchanges. Its
Pollution Prevention Information Exchange System (PIES)
can be accessed electronically 24 hours a day without fees.
For more information contact:
PIES Technical Assistance
Science Applications International Corp.
8400 Westpark Drive
McLean, VA 22102
(703) 821-4800
or
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Myles E. Morse
Office of Environmental Engineering
and Technology Demonstration
(202) 475-7161
Priscilla Flattery
Pollution Prevention Office
(202) 245-3557
The EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Re-
sponse has a telephone call-in service to answer questions
regarding RCRA and Superfund (CERCLA). The telephone
numbers are:
(800) 424-9346 (outside the District of Columbia)
(202) 382-3000 (in the District of Columbia)
The following programs offer technical and/or financial
assistance for waste minimization and treatment
Alabama
Hazardous Material Management and Resources
Recovery Program
University of Alabama
P.O. Box 6373
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-6373
(205) 348-8401
Alaska
Alaska Health Project
Waste Reduction Assistance Program
431 West Seventh Avenue, Suite 101
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 276-2864
Arkansas
Arkansas Industrial Development Commission
One State Capitol Mall
Little Rock, AR 72201
(501) 371-1370
California
Alternative Technology Division
Toxic Substances Control Program
California State Department of Health Services
714/744 P Street
Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
(916) 324-1807
Connecticut
Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service
Suite 360
900 Asylum Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105
(203) 244-2007
Connecticut Department of Economic Development
210 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
(203) 566-7196
Florida
Waste Reduction Assistance Program
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee. EL 32399-2400
(904) 488-0300
Georgia
Hazardous Waste Technical Assistance Program
Georgia Institute of Technology
Georgia Technical Research Institute
Environmental Health and Safety Division
O'Keefe Building, Room 027
Atlanta, GA 30332
(404) 894-3806
Environmental Protection Division
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Floyd Towers East, Suite 1154
205 Butler Street
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-2833
-------
Guam
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Program
Guam Environmental Protection Agency
ITCE E. Harmon Plaza, Complex Unit D-107
130 Rojas Street
Harmon, Guam 96911
(671) 646-8863
Illinois %
Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center
Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources
One East Hazelwood Drive
Champaign, IL 61820
(217) 333-8940
Illinois Waste Elimination Research Center
Pritzker Department of Environmental Engineering
Alumni Building, Room 102
Illinois Institute of Technology
3200 South Federal Street
Chicago, IL 60616
(313)567-3535
Indiana
Environmental Management and Education Program
Young Graduate House, Room 120
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907
(317) 494-5036
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Office of Technical Assistance P.O. Box 6015
105 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317) 232-8172
Iowa
Center for Industrial Research and Service
205 Engineering Annex
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011
(515) 294-3420
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Air Quality and Solid Waste Protection Bureau
Wallace State Office Building
900 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50319-0034
(515) 281-8690
Kansas
Bureau of Waste Management
Department of Health and Environment
Forbesfield, Building 730
Topeka, KS 66620
(913) 269-1607
Kentucky
Division of Waste Management
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 564-6716
Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Solid and Hazardous Waste
P.O. Box 44307
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
(504) 342-1354
Maryland
Maryland Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Board
60 West Street, Suite 200 A
Annapolis, MD 21401
(301) 974-3432
Maryland Environmental Service
2020 Industrial Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401
(301)269-3291
(800) 492-9188 (in Maryland)
Massachusetts
Office of Technical Assistance
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Room 1094
Boston, MA 02202
(617)727-3260
Source Reduction Program
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 292-5982
Michigan
Resource Recovery Section
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-0540
Minnesota
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Solid and Hazardous Waste Division
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612) 296-6300
53
-------
Minnesota Technical Assistance Program
1313 5th Street SE Suite 207
Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612) 627-4555
(800) 247-0015 (in Minnesota)
Missouri
State Environmental Improvement and Energy
Resources Agency
P.O. Box 744
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314) 751-4919
New Hampshire
New Hampshire Dept. Of Environmental Services
Waste Management Division
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301-6509
(603) 271-2901
New Jersey
New Jersey Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting
Commission
Room 614
28 West State Street
Trenton, NJ 08608
(609) 292-1459
(609) 292-1026
Hazardous Waste Advisement Program
Bureau of Regulation and Classification
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609)292-8341
Risk Reduction Unit
Office of Science and Research
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 984-6070
New York
New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 457-3273
North Carolina
Pollution Prevention Pays Program
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development
P.O. Box 27687
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 733-7015
Governor's Waste Management Board
325 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 733-9020
Technical Assistance Unit
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch
North Carolina Department of Human Resources
P.O. Box 2091
306 North Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27602
(919) 733-2178
Ohio
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
1800 WaterMark Drive
Columbus, OH 43266-1049
(614) 481-7200
Ohio Technology Transfer Organization
Suite 200
65 East State Street
Columbus, OH 43266-0330
(614) 466-4286
Oklahoma
Industrial Waste Elimination Program
Oklahoma State Department of Health
P.O. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 271-7353
Oregon
Oregon Hazardous Waste Reduction Program
Department of Environmental Quality
811 Southwest Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-5913
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program
501F. Orvis Keller Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 865-0427
Center of Hazardous Material Research
320 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
(412) 826-5320
54
-------
Bureau of Waste Management
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
P.O. Box 2063
Fulton Building
3rd and Locust Streets
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717) 787-6239
Wisconsin
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
101 South Webster Street
Madison, WI53707
(608)267-3763 '
Rhode Island
Office of Environmental Coordination
Dept. of Environmental Management
83 Park Street
Providence, RI02903
(401) 277-3434
(800) 253-2674 (in Rhode Island)
Ocean State Cleanup and Recycling Program
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
9 Hayes Street
Providence, RI 02908-5003
(401) 277-3434
(800) 253-2674 (in Rhode Island)
Center for Environmental Studies
Brown University
P.O. Box 1943
135 Angell Street
Providence, RI 02912
(401) 863-3449
Tennessee
Center for Industrial Services
102 Alumni Hall
University of Tennessee
Knoxville,TN 37996
(615) 974-2456
Virginia
Office of Policy and Planning
Virginia Department of Waste Management
11th Floor, Monroe Building
101 North 14th Street
Richmond, V A 23219
(804) 225-2667
Washington
Hazardous Waste Section
Mail Stop PV-11
Washington Department of Ecology
Olympia, WA 98504-8711
(206) 459-6322
Wyoming
Solid Waste Management Program
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
Herchler Building, 4th Floor, West Wing
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7752
Waste Exchanges
Alberta Waste Materials Exchange
Mr. William C. Kay
Alberta Research Council
Post Office Box 8330
Postal Station F
Edmonton, Alberta
CANADA T6H 5X2
(403) 450-5408
British Columbia Waste Exchange
Ms. JudyToth
2150 Maple Street
Vancouver, B.C.
CANADA V6J3T3 .
(604) 731-7222
California Waste Exchange
Mr. Robert McCormick
Department of Health Services
Toxic Substances Control Program
Alternative Technology Division
Post Office Box 942732
Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
(916) 324-1807
Canadian Chemical Exchange*
Mr. Philippe LaRoche
P.O. Box 1135
Ste-Adele, Quebec
CANADA JOR1LO
(514) 229-6511
Canadian Waste Materials Exchange
ORTECH International
Dr. Robert Laughlin
2395 Speakman Drive
Mississauga, Ontario
CANADA L5K1B3
(416) 822-4111 (Ext. 265)
FAX: (416) 823-1446
* For-Profit Waste Information Exchange
55
-------
Enstar Corporation*
Mr. J.T. Engster
P.O. Box 189
Latham, NY 12110
(518) 785-0470
Great Lakes Regional Waste Exchange
400 Ann Street N.W., Suite 201A
Grand Rapids, MI 49505
(616) 363-3262
Indiana Waste Exchange
Dr. Lynn A. Corson
Purdue University
School of Civil Engineering
Civil Engineering Building
West Lafayette, IN 47907
(317) 494-5036
Industrial Materials Exchange
Mr. Jerry Henderson
172 20th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98122
(206) 296-4633
FAX: (206) 296-0188
Industrial Materials Exchange Service
Ms. Diane Shockey
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, EL 62794-9276
(217) 782-0450
FAX: (217) 524-4193
Industrial Waste Information Exchange
Mr. William E. Payne
New Jersey Chamber of Commerce
5 Commerce Street
Newark, NJ 07102
(201) 623-7070
Manitoba Waste Exchange
Mr. James Ferguson
c/o Biomass Energy Institute, Inc.
1329 NiakwaRoad
Winnipeg, Manitoba
CANADA R2J3T4
(204) 257-3891
Montana Industrial Waste Exchange
Mr. Don Ingles
Montana Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 1730
Helena, MT 59624
(406)442-2405
* Fof-ProGt Waste Information Exchange
Northeast Industrial Waste Exchange, Inc.
Mr. Lewis Cutler
90 Presidential Plaza, Suite 122
Syracuse, NY 13202
(315) 422-6572
FAX: (315) 422-9051
Ontario Waste Exchange
ORTECH International
Ms. Linda Varangu
2395 Speakman Drive
Mississauga, Ontario
CANADA L5K 1B3
(416) 822-4111 (Ext. 512)
FAX: (416) 823-1446
Pacific Materials Exchange
Mr. Bob Smee
South 3707 Godfrey Blvd.
Spokane, WA 99204
(509) 623-4244
Peel Regional Waste Exchange
Mr. Glen Milbury
Regional Municipality of Peel
10 Peel Center Drive
Brampton, Ontario
CANADA L6T 4B9
(416) 791-9400
Renew
Ms. Hope Castillo
Texas Water Commission
Post Office Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512) 463-7773
FAX: (512) 463-8317
San Francisco Waste Exchange
Ms. Portia Sinnott
2524 Benvenue #35
Berkeley, CA 94704
(415) 548-6659
Southeast Waste Exchange
Ms. Maxie L. May
Urban Institute
UNCC Station
Charlotte, NC 28223
(704) 547-2307
Southern Waste Information Exchange
Mr. Eugene B. Jones
Post Office Box 960
Tallahassee, FL 32302
(800) 441-SWK (7949)
(904) 644-5516
FAX: (904) 574-6704
56
-------
Tennessee Waste Exchange
Ms. Patti Christian
226 Capital Blvd., Suite 800
Nashville, TN 37202
(615) 256-5141
FAX: (615) 256-6726
Wastelink, Division of Tencon, Inc.
Ms. Mary E. Malotke
140 Wooster Pike
Milford, OH 45150
(513) 248-0012
FAX: (513) 248-1094
U.S. EPA Regional Offices
Region 1 (VT, NH, ME, MA, CT, RI)
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3715
Region 2 (NY, NJ)
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-2525
Region 3 (PA, DE, MD, WV, VA)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-9800
Region 4 (KY, TN, NC, SC, G A, FL, AL, MS)
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404)347-4727
Region 5 (WI, MN, MI, EL, IN, OH)
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)353-2000
Region 6 (NM, OK, AR, LA, TX)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214)655-6444
Region 7 (NE, KS, MO, IA)
756 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 236-2800
Region 8 (MT, ND, SD, WY, IJT, CO)
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303) 293-1603
Region 9 (CA, NV, AZ, HI)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1305
Region 10 (AK, WA, OR, ID)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442-5810
57
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA/625/7-91/014
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
PR91-227967
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
GUIDES TO POLLUTION PREVENTION
THE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED AND COMPOSITE
PLASTICS INDUSTRIES
5. REPORT DATE
October-—3-93J
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
Pasadena, CA 91101-3063
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D8-0112
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Teresa Harten 513-569-7565 FTS 684-7565
16. ABSTRACT
The fiberglass reinforced and composite plastic industries generate wastes
(including air emissions) during fabrication processes and from the use of
solvents for clean-up tools, molds and spraying equipment. The wastes generated
are: partially solidified resins, contaminated solvent from equipment clean-up,
scrap coated fiber, solvated resin streams, and volatile organic emissions. The
guide manual presents source reduction and recycling opportunities for reducing
these wastes. Suggestions include using substitutes for solvent cleaners, making
changes to mixing and application equipment, recovering and recycling solvent, and
implementing good materials management and housekeeping practices.
To help companies in the industry identify opportunities for waste reduction at
their own facilities, the guide includes a set of worksheets which take the user
step-by-step through an analysis of the on-site waste generating operations and
the possibilities for minimizing each waste. The guide and its worksheets would
also be instructive to consultants serving the fiberglass reinforced and composite
plastics industries and government agencies who regulate waste streams generated
from these firms.
17. KEY WORDS AND OOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Hazardous materials
Industrial waste
Fiberglass reinforced plastics
Composite materials
Pollution prevention
Waste reduction
Waste minimization
Solvent recycling
Composite plastics
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. Ol^^i\GES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page!
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) previous edition is oesoLETEgg
~u.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1993 - 750-002/60171
-------
-------
m
T3
I
ro
cn
=?
CO
o
m~k
"D O
co© 3
O » 2.
^SL
-f- CD
2 c
^ 0)
5 5'
=• ©
< 0)
SI w
o
C
w
CD (Q
CO CD
CD 3
0) O
3^
3-
3
O
3
oj
5'
3
C
2.
CD
Q.
CO
£2.
CD
CO
o 9-2
» % (D
-V fi> DJ
§3-8
O- o 3
§8|
® ? s.
" e =>
IS
ro $
eg
=>•2
E3"
f i
w 3-
I-
5- g.
a-
-» 0
------- |